a
ela ee eR Se oe
2
ontario aS
— AE ny ee ora
Se ee re
SNe ‘i ahainainst tine: aaaeesne~nentaeeiaen ide, aon
Archeologia Cambrewsis.
THE
JOURNAL
OF THE
Cambrian Archeologiral Association.
ee%e
.
LONDON :
J. RUSSELL SMITH, 36, SOHO SQUARE.
CHESTER: CATHERALL & PRITCHARD. TENBY: R. MASON.
1859.
R. MASON, PRINTER, HIGH STREET, TENBY.
Dawrnrwn sai “
Grou Je
rm-ai- Be
32304
PREFACE.
In this Volume one of the most valuable series of papers
will be found in the Account of the Earls, Earldom, and
Castle of Pembroke. This supplies a desideratum in
the History of Wales, and is deserving of the careful
attention of Members.
Another important collection of papers has been
begun in the Official Accounts of the Excavations on the
site of Uriconium, which promise to put antiquaries in
possession of much unexpected information concerning
the state of Roman Britain.
Edward Lhwyd’s Letters and Papers will be continued
until the collection is gone through.
Mr. Westwood’s series of Observations on Early
Inscribed Stones and Crosses will also for a long time
be gradually conveying to Members a more accurate
knowledge of the monumental history of our early
forefathers. New discoveries in this department are
making every year.
In other respects the Publishing Sub-Committee hope
that this Volume will be considered worthy of the
Association, and they have again to thank Members for
their co-operation and their kindness.
inte Biles a a iy
YN Uf aya) Vie yf day Utiyy
oP aii Mi OB fe
4A
Arrhealogia Cambrensis.
THIRD SERIES, No. XVII.—JANUARY, 1859.
THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE.
. No. I.
Ir has but seldom happened that those families, in whose
favour, in modern times, have been revived the titles of
the great Norman nobles, could claim ‘any close affinity
with, or direct descent from, the distinguished warriors
or statesmen by whom their original -tustre was achieved.
Thus‘it is with the Oxfords and Mortimers, the Leicesters,
the Derbys, the Warwicks and Winchesters, the Staffords,
the Hertfords, the Salisburys, and the Buckinghams.
The earldoms of Arundel and Surrey, Norfolk and
Northumberland, are indeed represented in blood, but
through lines depending on more than one occasion upon
the distaff for their continuity, while the representatives
of the houses of Hastings, Nevill and Clinton, rare
examples of pure male descent, have taken refuge in
titles either of later creation, or anciently of subordinate
consideration |in their families. Hastings indeed com-
memorates in -the’ title of Huntingdon an earldom
originally held: by David le Scot, heir of the throne of
Scotland, whose daughter and heiress married the repre-
sentative of that family. .
The title of Pembroke belongs to the first of these
categories, although its owners are not without illustra-
ARCH. CAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. B
2 THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE.
tions of their own. Those who now bear it are not
connected, even irregularly, with the feudal earls.
The old earldom of Pembroke, not itself remarkable
for wealth or extent, was rendered illustrious by the suc-
cession of able and powerful nobles who wore its coronet
during the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries ;
and the names of Montgomery, of Clare, of Mareschal,
of Valence, and of Hastings, than which none were better
known among the barons of their age, were most dis-
tinguished in that branch of their families which bore
successively the title of Pembroke.
The power of the Lords Marchers of Wales, to which
body they belonged, was not only considerable, but it was
in a measure independent of the crown. These lords held
indeed under the crown, but they had “jura regalia,”
rights of high and low justice, of wreck, “ Pren a phwll,”
of “tree and pit,” of soc and sac, infangthef and out-
fangthef, and other barbarous names of yet more barbarous
privileges. They had also their chancellor, chancery, and
seal; their knightly vassals; and, until the reign of Henry
VIII., the king’s writ did not run in their territories.
Thus, 9 Edward I., Gilbert de Clare claimed to hold
land in Glamorgan as his ancestors, by conquest, “sicut
regale,” and declined answering the royal “quo warranto”
before taking counsel with his peers of England and the
marchers of Wales, and 18 Edward I., he, the Earl of
Hereford, and William de Braose, on the death of William
de Braose, Bishop of Llandaff, claimed to hold his tem-
poralities in their several marcher lordships. On this
occasion De Clare asserted his lordship to include the
whole territory of Glamorgan, (no doubt he excepted
Gower,) and that he and his ancestors, except when in
ward to the king, had always held the lands of the see
during its vacancy. This dispute was settled in com-
bination with the earl’s marriage, by the admission and
resignation of his rights, and a regrant of them to him
and his countess for their lives, with reversion to the crown.
(Rolls. Plac. in Parl. i. 42.) 19 Edward I., in the
celebrated dispute which arose out of Morlais Castle, the
THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE. 3
same Earls of Essex and Hertford claimed to have their
disputes laid before their friends at a “ Dies Marchie”
before they brought them into the king’s courts. In
21 Edward I. Fulk Fitz-Warine challenged the same
right. (Ab. Plac. 201-31.) 30 Edward I. William
de Braose claimed to be independent of the crown in
Hereford and Gower, alleging that he had in Gower a
chancellor, chancery, and seal, and power over life and
death. (Rot. Cur. Reg. i. xxxi.) The Welsh bishops
were also marchers. It appears from the Annals of Mar-
gam that, in 1131, there was a dispute De jure Marchi-
arum, between Bernard of St. David’s, and Urban of
Llandaff.
The marchers, among other privileges, had the chattels
of all their tenants who died intestate. When the chattels
of Sir William de Hastings were so taken, Henry III.
admitted the right, but disputed its application on the
ground that Sir William was a tenant in capite.
The marchers claimed to find silver spears for the
support of the queen’s canopy at a coronation, and did
so provide them for Eleanor, Queen of Henry III., when
they claimed, as “Jus Marchiz,” to bear the canopy,
instead of the barons of the Cinque Ports.
No doubt, under colour of attainders and minorities,
the crown not unfrequently stepped in and exercised the
powers of its feudatories ; but some pretext of this nature
seems always to have been thought necessary. Any illegal
infraction upon their privileges was always resented by
the marchers, and by none more zealously, or more suc-
cessfully, than the Earls of Pembroke.
The celebrated estuary of Milford Haven, running far
up into the Welsh district of Dyfed, isolates from the
body of the province a southern portion, which is thus
converted into a sort of peninsula, accessible everywhere
from the sea, intersected on the north by various branches
from the Haven, and possessing a mild but moist climate,
and a moderately fertile soil. This is the original district
of Pembroke, a name now extended over a much larger
SDs RN BE ATE GE IO TEES I
cxnpmsnnirenrtem en
cist Be scence aaa
4 THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE.
space. It is of Welsh origin, “ Pen” designating its bold
projection,
“That utmost point into the Iberian deep ;”
while “ Broke,” “ Bro,” or “ Braich” has long been a
bone of contention among Welsh etymologists, far too
nearly allied to the celebrated Wardour controversy about
“‘Pen-val” to be approached scathless by an English
antiquary. The whole tract is contained in the modern
cantref or hundred of Penryne, and is itself composed of
the three commotes of Pembroke, Coedrayt, and Manor-
beer.—(Lel. Ztin. v. 19.)
Of the early history of this remote subdivision of
Wales very little has been recorded. Whatever may have
been its advances in Christianity, or in the poetic literature
of the Cwmri, fostered as is probable at least as early as
the fourth century by a close intimacy with Ireland, all
seems to have been swept away before the eleventh cen-
tury. The peninsula lay peculiarly exposed to attacks
from the sea, and appears to have suffered a full share of
the piratical ravages of the Danes, who, from the middle
of the eighth century, were frequent and dreaded visitors
along the shores of the Bristol Channel, invading Dyfed
under Ubba in 878, appearing occasionally in South Wales
as late as the eleventh century, (Powel, Carad. p. 111,)
and whose traces are probably preserved in the names of
Skomer, Skokham, and Gateholm, still borne by some of
the islands which lie scattered along the coasts of Dyfed.
This district was always a favourite point for commu-
nication between Wales and Ireland, countries inhabited
by kindred people, who, after the Celtic manner, took a
lively interest in each others’ internal affairs.
The completed conquest and partition of England
brought over a swarm of Normans, who, not having
taken part in the original venture, and finding therefore
little share in the spoils, obtained license to extend the
sway of the Conqueror into Wales. They selected the
southern and more exposed districts, accessible by sea,
commencing with Gwent and Glamorgan; and they
THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE, 5
profited largely by the disunion of the natives. As early
as 1049, Griffith, Prince of North Wales, invited Sweyn,
a son of Earl Godwin, to join in the invasion of West
Wales ; and in the brief reign of Harold,—much of whose
early reputation was due to his victories over the Welsh,
and his erection, it is related, of a palace at Portskewet, in
Monmouthshire,—Caradoc ap Griffith, to avenge a defeat,
made overtures to the Saxons, and these, repeated to the
Normans, brought over in 1069-70 a small force, which
withdrew only to return augmented about 1072, when
occurred what was probably the first organized attack by
the Normans upon West Wales.
By 1079 the Conqueror had arranged the defence of
his own borders, and began to turn his attention upon
his active and salient neighbours. Several authors afirm
that, in this year, he entered Wales with an army,
proceeded as far as St. David’s, received homage and
submission from the Welsh, and, some add, set at liberty
a number of prisoners. (Jones, History of Wales, Carte
i. 434; Ingr. Sax. Chr. 286.) In 1086-7, just before
his death, William passed a Christmas, as he had occa-
sionally done before, at Gloucester, upon the Welsh
frontier. (M. Paris, Flor. Worc., Powel, Hollinshed,
Lappenberg Ang. Sax.)
William Rufus pursued his father’s policy as regarded
Wales. In 1091 he is said by William of Malmesbury
to have led an army thither; and by other authorities,
though generally unsuccessful to have gained a victory
near Brecon, and to have slain Rhys, the Welsh leader.
In 1092 he promoted the conquest of South and North
Wales, and encouraged a strong league of barons led by
Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury, Hugh, Earl of Chester, and
Henry de Newburg, Earl of Warwick, the conqueror of
Gower, who proposed to themselves the settlement of
Powis, Cardigan, Ewyas, Dyfed and Gower. Earl Roger,
head of the house of Montgomery, was their chief. He
was a prudent, and able, and, after the fashion of his age,
a religious noble. He held with his wife Mabel the great
possessions of the Norman family of De Talvas, and in
6 THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE.
his own right the town of Chichester, and the earldoms
of Arundel and Shrewsbury, where he founded the yet
extant castles, and by means of the latter conquered, and
held in check, and gave his name to, the town and county
of Montgomery. He did homage with the rest for their
future conquest, and entered South Wales by sea in 1092.
Earl Roger was resisted by Cadogan ap Bleddyn, who
is said to have repelled some earlier invaders, and to have
recovered all the strong places except Pembroke and
Rydcors. He seems to have held Roger in check, and in
1093 to have gained upon him considerably. In 1094
the attack was renewed, but still without success. In
1095 Rufus, returning from Normandy, led the invaders,
attacking Montgomery in January, and North Wales at
Michaelmas. (Carte.) Both in this and the following
year he was unsuccessful, and the castle of Montgomery
was lost. Earl Roger, left to himself, probably made good
his ground in Middle Wales, and rebuilt his castle within
the year ; for, on the 27th August following, he was, with
other barons, slain by the Welsh between Cardiff and
Brecknock. There is, however, another version which
represents him as setting aside the last three days of his
life to prayer and conference in the abbey of Shrewsbury,
and there dying in something of the odour of sanctity,
27th August, 1094. Earl Roger is the reputed founder
of Kilgerran Castle, said to have been completed by
Gilbert Strongbow.
His place in West Wales was filled by Arnulph, a
younger son, styled by some writers Earl of Pembroke.
Inheriting no land, he applied for and received from
Rufus license to conquer Dyfed; and he is thought to
have built the original castle at Pembroke, where he
placed Gerald de Windsor as castellan.
Whether Arnulph built or rebuilt any part of the
present castle is uncertain; but that he left a fortress
there on a large scale is evident, from his gift, in 1098,
of “the church of St. Nicholas, within his castle of Pem-
broke, and twenty carucates of land,” to the Norman
abbey of St. Martin, at Sayes, founded by his father.
THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE. 7
(Monast. and Tanner.) This he did for the weal of his
own soul, that of his father, and that of his brother Hugh,
surnamed by the Welsh “Goch,” from the red colour of
his hair, and recently (1098) slain. In consequence, a
Benedictine priory, a cell to St. Martin’s, and dedicated to
St. Nicholas and St. John the Evangelist, was established
at Pembroke, where the ruins are still known as Monk-
ton. In 1097 Rufus was again in Wales, from Mid-
summer to August, and with great loss. He passed his
last Christmas, 1100, at Gloucester.
Upon the king’s death, in 1100, Arnulph strengthened
his position, and with him
“Came Robert de Belesme through his overweening,
And passed hither over the sea, and into Wales went,”
where the two brothers took a prominent place among
the turbulent nobility who adhered to Duke Robert, and
defended in 1102 Bridgenorth, Shrewsbury, and Arundel
Castles against the king. Peter of Langtoft continues,—
“ Within days thirty taken was he through spy
And led to King Henry ; done had he felony,
And his brother Arnold -
Some accounts place the exile of the two brothers in
1102, others state that after the banishment of Robert de
Belesme, Arnulph, still supporting Curthose and his own
brother’s interests, strengthened Pembroke Castle, and
made overtures to the Welsh. Finally, however, he fled
to Ireland, and married Lafracoth, daughter of King
Morcar. (Oder. Vital.)
Henry speedily detached the Welsh from his cause, and
cut off his return to Wales. In 1103 he appears as assis-
ting the Irish to beat off a piratical attack from Magnus
of Norway, but he finally fled to Normandy, where he
took part in the battle of Alengon in 1118. Meantime,
Henry placed Saher, one of his knights, at Pembroke ; but
in 1102 he restored the charge to Gerald the former
castellan. The castle must therefore be regarded at this
period as vested in the crown.
Gerald was third son of Walter Fitz-Other, castellan
8 THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE.
of Windsor, founder of the great families of Fitz-Gerald
in Ireland, and Carew and Windsor in England and Ire-
land. He became the third husband of Nest, daughter
of Rhys ap Twdwr, and sister of Griffith ap Rhys, Princes
of South Wales. By her he was father of William,
Maurice, and Griffith Fitz-Gerald, and Walter, Bishop of
St. David’s. (Hollinshed, 109.) Nest had been mistress
to Henry I., and by him was mother of Henry, and of
Robert Earl of Gloucester. One of Gerald’s grand-
children, the son either of his son Gerald, or of his
daughter Angharad, for the matter is doubtful, was the
celebrated historian Giraldus Cambrensis, or De Barri,
whose family may possibly have given name to the Gla-
morganshire island of Barry, but most certainly did not,
as has been supposed, derive it from thence.
Gerald is reputed to have rebuilt Pembroke Castle; but
this more probably relates to Carew, a corruption of the
Welsh “ Caerau,” “ Castra,” a neighbouring stronghold,
whence one of his sons, Ido or Odo de Carrio, derived
his name. Both Carews and Windsors long remained in
the district. As late as 8 Richard II. Sir William de
Windsor appears by an inquisition to hold the lordship of
Manorbeer, and the castle and manor of Penally. (ng.
p- m. iii. 69.)
Soon after Gerald was installed, Owen ap Cadogan ap
Bleddyn entered Pembroke Castle by a peculiarly dirty
piece of treachery, and stole thence Nest, and Gerald’s two
sons, and took them to Powis. Gerald drove Owen into
Ireland, and recovered first the children, and finally their
mother. Owen, assisted by the Irish, returned to Wales,
and carried on for many years a desultory war against
Gerald and the men of Pembroke.
Pembroke about 1111 received a colony of Flemings.
Men of this nation were not unknown in England.
Several had come over with, and been encouraged by, the
Conqueror, and others were in favour with Henry’s son-
in-law the emperor, and with Henry himself, whose
mother Maud was daughter to Baldwin, Earl of Flanders.
In consequence of an inundation in their own country, a
THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE. 9
considerable number emigrated about this time to Eng-
land, and were kindly received by Henry, and sent to
settle themselves in Pembroke, as a barrier, says Malmes-
bury, against the Welsh. They speedily colonized and
defended the peninsula, and are described by Giraldus as
a brave and contented people.
A little before this time, about 1107, Henry, irritated
4 the murder of a Flemish bishop then travelling in
rest Wales, and much engaged in the contest for the
investitures with Archbishop Anselm and Pope Paschal
II., and having in view an expedition to Normandy, called
in the aid of Gilbert de Clare, a nobleman well known in
Normandy, England, and Wales, and whose uncle Walter
was the conqueror of North Gwent. To him Henry
offered the dangerous permission to conquer Cardigan,
the inheritance of Cadogan ap Bleddyn.
Gilbert de Clare was the descendant and ancestor of a
strong-blooded and powerful race of barons, who left
their mark upon almost every great transaction of the
tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries in Normandy and
England, and latterly in Wales and Ireland. He was
descended from Richard, Duke of Normandy, whose
natural son, Geoffrey, Count of Eu, was father to Gisle-
bert, surnamed “Crispin,” Count of Brionne and Eu,
a man of violence, who was put to death by a family he
had injured. He was father, some say by Arlotta the
Conqueror’s mother, to Ricuarp and Baldwin, who as-
sisted in the conquest of England.
Baldwin, styled indifferently ‘de Molis,” ‘“ Meules,”
“de Sap,” ‘de Exeter,” and “ Le Viscomte,” the two latter
titles relating to his office of sheriff of Devon, stood high in
Duke William’s confidence. He resided at Okehampton,
and at the close of the western rebellion, in 1068, when
Gytha, Harold’s mother, fled to Steepholm, and Exeter,
after a fourteen to eighteen days’ siege, surrendered to the
Conqueror, he received from that prince twenty houses
in the town, and 159 manors in the district, and was left
with a strong garrison to construct a castle. How well
he did his work is evident from the remains still extant.
ARCH. CAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. Cc
10 THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE,
The earthworks are the most formidable in England,
and surpass even those at Wallingford. Baldwin died
before 1091, having married Emma, daughter of an aunt
of the Conqueror, probably Adelaide, wife of Renaud
de Bourgoyne. They had issue, Robert, Richard, and
William.
Robert regained the alienated inheritance of Brionne
in 1090 from Duke Robert, on the rebellion of Robert,
Earl of Meulan, and afterwards when called upon to yield
it up he refused, and stood an assault, of which a very
spirited account is given by Odericus Vitalis. Brionne
occupied an island between Montreuil and St. Evrault,
and the manor of Sap was near it. Robert died in 1135.
Of William nothing is recorded.
Ricwarp Firz-Gi.Bert, called from his Norman manor,
or as some untruly say from Benefield, in Northampton-
shire, ‘de Bienfaite,”’ and sometimes “de Clare,” and
“de Tonbridge,” from his principal English possessions,
was one of the most considerable and most richly rewarded
of the Norman adventurers. In Normandy he had Bien-
faite and Orbec. In England, besides Tonbridge, he
received in Surrey thirty-eight lordships, in Essex thirty-
five, in Cambridgeshire three, and in Suffolk, including
Clare, ninety-five, in all 171 lordships. (Foss. Judges,
i. 30.)
The Leuca or Lowy of Tonbridge he is said to have
obtained with the manor of Homet, in Normandy, from
the Archbishop of Canterbury, in exchange for Brionne.
It is related that a thong being extended round Brionne
was transferred to England and laid out at Tonbridge, so
as to include an equal area. This ordinary story, though
very generally received, is scarcely consistent with the
figure of the Lowy, which is well known and preserved.
It is very irregular. A part, tolerably compact, is on
the east bank of the Medway, including the castle, town,
and suburbs, and part is on the west bank, forming two
peninsulas, one of which includes the Somerhill domain,
and extends almost to Tonbridge Wells. The franchise is
probably of Saxon date. It is entered in Domesday as
THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE. 11
belonging to Earl Richard. 42 and 43 Henry III. it is
called the “‘ Baleuca,” and the “ Leucata de Tonbridge.”
Its present name is the Lewy. (Hasted, Kent, ii. 308 ;
Cal. Rot. Pat. 30, 1.)
This Lewy of Tonbridge was claimed by Becket as a
fief of his see, and the earl’s refusal, under the king’s
order, to do homage, was one of the grievances brought
forward by the prelate. The homage then withheld was
afterwards conceded to Archbishop Walter Hubert.
In 1073 Earl Richard was joint chief justice of Eng-
land with William de Warrene, and in that capacity he
assisted the Regent Odo to put down Waltheof’s con-
spiracy.
On the death of William, the earl at first supported
Duke Robert, whom he joined in inviting to England.
In 1088 he was besieged for two days, (Carte,) wounded,
and taken in Tonbridge Castle, by William Rufus, to
whom he then swore allegiance.
In 1091, while fighting for Rufus at the siege of
Coucy, he was taken by Curthose ; and in 1095 he was
a sharer in Mowbray’s conspiracy, when he is called “de
Tonbridge.” Soon after this his warlike tastes led him
into South Wales, where he made an inroad into Cardigan,
in returning from which he was waylaid and slain by the
Welsh, under Iorwerth, brother of the lord of Carleon,
near Llanthony.
Richard was buried at Ernulphsbury, or St. Neot’s,
co. Hunts, a manor inherited by his wife; and he is
reputed to have given lands at Tooting to the monks of
Bec, who established a priory there.
He married Rohaise, sister of Walter Giffard, Earl of
Buckingham, and eventually heiress of his vast estates in
England and Normandy. Of their five children,—
1. Roger de Bienfaite, called by Lappenberg the
second son, supported Duke Robert against his father in
1080, and in 1109 accompanied Maud, daughter of
Henry I. to Germany, and was present at her marriage
with the Emperor Henry. He was distinguished in
arms under Henry I., whom in 1119 he encouraged to
12 THE EARLS, EARLDOM, AND CASTLE OF PEMBROKE.
fight with Louis of France, and shared in the battle and
the victory. He is recorded to have slain Robert, son of
Humphry de Bellomont. He died childless, and be-
queathed his possessions to his nephew, Gilbert, son of
his brother of the same name.
2. GILBERT, who carried on the succession.
3. Walter, conqueror of Nether Gwent, who also be-
queathed his possessions to his nephew, Gilbert.
4, Robert, died 1135. He married a daughter of
Waltheof, Earl of Huntingdon, and was ancestor of the
great baronial house of Fitz-Walter.
5. Richard, a monk of Bec, was Abbot of Ely. There
were also two daughters, one of whom married Raoul de
Tillieres, or Telgus.
Rohaise, the widow, remarried Eudo Dapifer. She
attached St. Neot’s to the abbey of Bec.
GIsLEBERT, or GILBERT DE CLARE, was, from his resi-
dence in Gwent, often, though irregularly, called Earl of
Striguil. Striguil was probably founded by William
Fitz-Osbern, Earl of Hereford, and is one of the three
Monmouthshire castles mentioned in Domesday.
In 1095 he joined Robert de Mowbray in the northern
rebellion against Rufus; but seeing the king about to fall
personally into an ambush, he warned him of the danger.
Three years later, 12 William II., while in rebellion with
Robert, Earl of Moreton, he was besieged and taken by
the king in Tonbridge Castle. About 1107, summoned
by Henry I., he entered West Wales. Shortly afterwards
he invaded Cardigan by sea, reduced it to submission
from the Teivi to the Ystwyth, and founded the castles
of Aberystwyth, Aberteivi or Cardigan, and re-edified
that of Kilgerran. By this means he forced Owen ap
Caradoc to make terms with Gerald, then in charge of
Pembroke Castle. Gilbert died about 1115, Hasted
says 1111, of consumption, to the great joy of his Welsh
neighbours. (Powel, 151.)
Gilbert endowed richly the abbey of Bec, annexing to
it the church of St. John at Clare, with seven stalls
founded by the Confessor, and adding to this other lands
LETTERS OF W. WILLIAMS, OF IVY TOWER. 13
for the repose of his own soul, and those of his father,
mother, and his brother Godfrey, not elsewhere mentioned,
perhaps not legitimate, buried in the church-yard of
Clare. He was also a liberal contributor to the monks of
Thorney, Lewes, and Gloucester. (Dugd. Baron. 207.)
He married Adeliza, daughter of the Count of Cler-
mont, and by her had four sons, and a daughter, Rohaise.
Adeliza seems to have founded the commandery of
Melchbourn, co. Beds. (Tanner.)
Geo. T. Ciark.
Dowlais, January, 1859.
(To be continued. )
LETTERS OF WILLIAM WILLIAMS,
OF IVY TOWER, PEMBROKESHIRE,
TO THEOPHILUS JONES, OF BRECON.
No. II.
(Concluded from p. 382, Vol. IV.)
III,
Ivy Tower. Tenby 9. August 1810
Dear Sir
First thanking you from my heart for your kind
present which arrived after I had sent you my Primitive History ;
the carriage of which I was so unpolite as not to defray; not
indeed thro a niggardly turn, but because letters and parcels hence
postpaid have not been received;—I am astonished at what
curious intelligence your Celtic friend has superadded to Bryant.
I wish Mr Davies in quoting that author had set down the
chapter and verse of each writer from whom Mr Bryant has
respectively deduced his conclusions. For our English mytholo-
gist, as to what he says mostly from his own conjectures, merits
for his motto,— Quod vult, valde vult. Not but I ever deemed
the 8 Arkites the primitive general Cabiri. But Ham’s family
deified 8 persons of that peculiar family namely
1. Noah, the parent of the pagan Gods Oceanus; Ogen,
whence old men were oneal Ogenides. Muth (or Pluto or
14 LETTERS OF W. WILLIAMS, OF IVY TOWER,
Serapis) according to Varro—Nilus I.—Proteus I.—Nereus
Grandevus—From him Ham was termed Barmoth—Noah
is the Fish Notius in Hyginus Astron. 2. 30 & 41.
. Tethys, Noah’s consort.
. Ham, Chamos; Opus, Cham ob; Phtha; Anak; old
Prometheus: Cronos; Belus; Sol; Marnas; Taran; Thor;
Kap-ngic ; Volian of Gaul; Thamuz or Thaumus, or Genitor
Mavors: Zamolxis, or Zam-ol Zeus; Ham the mighty
God. Plutarch’s Armyn (and see Sanchoniatho). Cam-
Eses or Hizzus—Mars Adonis—Ababas—Gabirus. Zeth
Prometheus.
. Ham’s wife, Thebe; Latona, see Herodot. 2. 156. The
ancient Venus Mother of the (Egyptian) Gods: Athyr ;
Beros: Maya: Cabeira; Astarte: Anaitis; Diana: Atar-
gatis Derceto: Baaltis: Alilat; Mylitta; Ceres Anti-
quissima Minerva.
. Misor: Menes, Mendes or Pan, (see Herodot. 2. 46).
Osiris,—antiquissimum Egypti numen in Tacitus :—Isiris
Cadmillus, Priapus—Agathodemon—Ogmeon,— Dionysius
—Hermes I. Aroueris, an old God, in Plutarch.
6. Misor’s wife Isis, Chamyna, Phoronis, Bona Dea.
7. Thwth Hermogenes (see Eratosthenes) Hermanubis; Tris-
megistus. He is deemed an ancient God by Plato.
8. Apis or Epius, Ismunus.
So much for your Celtic friend’s “ Ogdoad.”
The Titans (some 7 centuries afterwards) affected the names of
these primitive Gods. Altho Druidical rites prevailed in Samo-
thrace, and Circe’s cauldron and that of Diana at Tauris were
Druidical, yet Tuitho, or Teutat sometimes named Tat, Ham’s
Great Grandson, who came into Europe, probably expelled by
the Hycsi pastors, and died in Spain; brought the Arkite rites
among the Celte: but when Joshua expelled Canaanites, after
the Trojan war, (3. 6. Pomponius Mela) they brought additional
rites, disliked at first in Britain. Thus Sarum had its name from
Saron, Phenician for an oak: Ambermount signifies Sacred
Mount; Beli-Sama Holy Queen: Sadwrn, Patent &c. Trojans
also brought Phrygian rites (after the example of Pius Eneas)
to Britain: for their arrival here is not an antient tale.
Mr Davies seems not to have perused Lucian De Dea Syria.
In her temple was a hole through which it was feigned that the
flood sunk away. But Lucian says the names of the Gods were
first known in Egypt—See Herodotus 250. t 52.—
Menw (page 13) was the first Egyptian Menes, Ham’s son
Misor, the primitive Mercury, and Hamberades. I admire the
Astronomical Truth (page 55-6)
TO THEOPHILUS JONES, OF BRECON. 15
The ancients counted 3 floods ;—Deucalion’s; that of Ogyges ;
but they say not in whose time the first was, page 97. Név,
Heaven, is the Russian Nebo, the Assyrian Deity. As Tacitus
wrote that Mona’s altars were polluted with blood of Captives
and events were predicted from their entrails. This account
resembles the magical rites of Persia, in a poem among the
Catalecta Poetarum ;—
Fata per humanas solitus preenoscere fibras,
Impius infanda religione sapor ;
Pectoris ingenui salientia viscera flammis
Imposuit ; magico carmine rupit humum ;
Ausus ab Elysiis Pompeium ducere campis &c.
Compare what P. Fugiens quotes from R. Simeon ; and Strabo,
of the Gauls: Q. Curtius 4. Diodorus Siculus 20: Justin 23:
Plato, in Minois; with the burnt offerings of the Druids in
Wicker idols: also see Deuteronomy 12. 31.—2 Kings 17. 21.—
Psalm 106. 37. 38.—Jeremy 7. 31: & 19. 5.—Ezek. 16. 20; &
23. 39 :—Solomon’s Wisdom, 14. 23.
As Sanchoniatho has recorded that the Phenician Agroueris
“ was drawn from place to place in a shrine by a yoke of oxen,”
so Tacitus says, “In an Oceanic isle stood a sacred grove; the
Goddess Demeter, covered with a vest was paraded about in a
vehicle drawn by cows,” like Ammon in Q. Curtius. Moloch’s
Tabernacle is mentioned Act. 7. 43. The Carthaginians carried
about in covered chariots, termed by Eustathius (Il. 1.) portable
temples, idols borne by oxen. Thus Sulpitius Severus says, “ the
Gauls made a procession about their farms with their Gods
covered with a white veil. Tacitus adds the Goddess was after-
wards bathed in a rivulet;. this resembles the Brahmans (in
Bartolomeo) laving the Goddess Bhagavani in a holy tank:
also the Roman rite as to Ceres, 6. Kal. April, according to
Ammian: when as Herodian writes, they paraded with Pluto;
as still done by our Morrice Dancers, so termed from Mawr
Rhys, Great King (Sol) the Morichus of Alex. ab Alex. b. 4.—
At Herodotus 2. 63, we read that the Eaypr1ans carried about
wooden idols in small temples, on four wheeled cars. Theodoret
(Serm. 4) says the Ioulos was sung to Ceres: It was the tropical
festival.
As to Caer Sida; Sida in Arabic is a Lady. But X:dy, like
Rimmon, is a Pomegranate: Its strong shell including a mul-
titude of seeds, it was deemed a fit emblem of the ark.
373. Loegrians, Lloech Gwr, Silvestres,—Gwynedd, Veneti,
Fair Tribe.
374, Gwrtheirn, Lord of the Tourn, or Moet; hence Attorney.
Sir, Born in Tenby, I have only learnt some Welsh nouns.
16 LETTERS OF W. WILLIAMS, OF IVY TOWER,
Therefore am no good critic, as to your extraordinary present.
Did I know how safely to send him a copy of my primitive
history, he should be welcome to it. Many passages in it may
confirm many assertions in his book—But I would recommend it
to him to publish an Edition of Nennius. It cannot be well
done but by a learned Cambrian, who would annex to every
Latin name its British. I could send in a little help. I remain
Sir your obliged servant m.
W. Witt1aMs.
Theophilus Jones, Esquire
Brecon.
IV.
Ivy Tower Tenby ; 15 Augst. 1810
My good Sir
Very entertaining has been your favour this
morning: I was particularly delighted to find that after all your
labours to gratify the public will find information as well as (sic)
arising from your particular duties. You can for amusement
write so perfectly at your ease. You doubtless conceive that what
I wrote of Celtic Lore was with a wish it should be communicated
to the excellent Rector of Bishopstone. Some 4 days ago I
noted what has pleased me wonderfully ; for it has confirmed me
in the belief that Noah not only finally settled somewhere east-
ward of the Indus: but that he debarked from the ark there-
abouts. Mount Masis in Armenia could not have been the scene
of disembarkation. Elephants buffaloes camels Horses Asses
&c could never have safely descended thence. And, confined
between the Euxina and Baltic it was not a site whence men &
animals could expand themselves commodiously over the old
world. I conclude that Noah grounded and landed on exceeding
high land with a long gradual descent toward lower regions.
vast country of this description is between Balk and Thibet:
And as the genuine Berosus wrote that Noah’s family went round,
to go to Shinar, I take it to mean taking a circuit round the
heads of the Indus: & that therefore the ark rested eastward of
that river, on the Bol-Ur hills, having Cashmere on the south
and Cashgar on the north. The vast height of that region is
proved by great rivers running thence every way; as the ancient
river Oxus westward into the Aral Lake ;—the Indus, Ganges,
and the Burrampooter southward; the vast yellow river runs
eastward to and thro all China: the Irtish runs northward into
the Oby, & both united into the Icy Sea. Consulting Forster’s
Map of Tartary I was agreeably surprized to find a Province
TO THEOPHILUS JONES, OF BRECON. 17
S.E. of the above hills, named Kilan, a name of Noah :—See
The Druid Rites p. 257. I think “ Chethem” akin to Chittim,
latinized into Cetii, not meaning as Bochart and others deem
“ Latent,” whence Latin; but from Ketos, a name of the ark.
p. 159 & 122. The custom of bidding to weddings prevailed
even in the East, as we learn from our Saviour, Mat. 22. Here
in Pembrokeshire the orator on such occasions is named a Llafer
(see p. 270). The sounding and ringing bridge stone at St
David’s, over which Henry 2 was warned not to pass was named
Llech laver. But now occurs to me your Maen Lia. This shows
that many old Gomerian words had been superseded by adven-
titious terms. Thus Dwr water is idwp, which Plato deemed a
Phrygian word ;—Water in old Cymbraeg (sic) is Au: hence
Aberddau ;—Llyd-au, watershore—Glau, rain. Owing to this
innovation of terms illiterate persons have united the old and
new names together. Thus, near me a natural carn has been
named Carn Rock; at Tenby a rock near S. Catherine’s Islet is
named Scur rock: but scur, scar, tor, tar, all signify a rock as
Tzor, Tyre does. Many are the oriental terms crept into the
Celtic, as Caer, Llan, Maen. Now your stone, Maen Llia, is
literally Stone stone; for the famous regal stone, now in West-
minster Abbey was named Lia Fail, the Fatal stone. Greek is
composed much of the 3 primitive tongues. The Celtic or
Japhetan ;—the Syriac, or Shemite, Gothic Tartarian ;—and the
Pheenician, or Chaldee, Ham’s language. A stone, Lapis, is in
Greek d.8d¢; both the Greek & Latin names are from our Lia;
for these people were apt to interpose, or prefix, consonants to
give strength to their language. Thus from the Greek, who have
immemorially lost their 6" letter or numeral, comes the Latin
Fibius; and their Sol is from the Celtic. Cambrians pronounce
their F like the Hebrew Vau; and each is the 6" letter in their
respective alphabets. The ancient Tuscans had the digamma
F :—See Swinton.
At p. 23. Gwron seems to be Gwr on, viz Solis; solar priest.
At p. 13 (& 262). Menw seems the first Menes, Ham’s son
Misor.
At p. 435-436. Pharaon seems Pharao On.
At p. 438. The cat is Bubastis, the emblem of the Egyptian
Diana, as the owl was of Minerva; both names respect Luna,
Empress of Night when cats and owls are vigilant.
At. p. 212. The circle of glass, reminds me of the sacred sea
of glass.
At p- 94. I rejoiced to find that Hebrew was used in Druidical
lore & (138) an ox represented a Druidical God, as well as an
Egyptian.
ARCH, CAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. D
18 LETTERS OF W. WILLIAMS, OF IVY TOWER,
Somewhat of minor note I might add: but I must attend to
the letter I am now favoured with. Our good Bp. far transcends
my praise. But never shall I see H—west again! I can scarcely
crawl along my parlour. Had the weather proved genial I would
have presumed to invite you hither and to have sent a good horse ;
but to see a person (who till 60 years old, active and blest with
spirits) lame languid, and debilitated and void of appetite would
be unpleasant altho my spirits at sight of an agreeable visitor
return some hours. But an Oceanic atmosphere quite over-
whelms me, as well as my Hay.
The transfer of property in Wales can only be touched in a
summary way and in a few rare instances. J.udlow decisions
and combinations bestowed estates at will, as the Herald’s Office
confers coat armour. The Maxima Est Veritas must be lost sight
of, and I have long since ceased to venerate Tomb stones. One
is in Laugharne on Penoir and one is in Tenby on a quondam
blacksmith ! !
Of Churches the small one of Eglwys Cymmun, between
Laugharne and Tavern Spite seems very ancient & a model of
one of the most ancient in Kent. I know not that I have seen
Llangadwrn Church; it is an antiquarian name! I remain Sir
very truly your obliged humble Servant
Ws. WIiams.
Theophilus Jones Esquire Brecon.
We
Ivy Tower. 30. Augst 1810.
Dear Sir
While you are tracing pedigrees which you deem
ancient, I have lately been examining one more ancient: and
find that St Matthew gives us the tables of the Royal succession
while Luke has recorded Christ’s parental descent. Matthew
omits 3 because Jehu was permitted to be their Lord paramount,
and the Jeconias which begins his 3¢ class was junior to him in
the 2" class. Some in Mathew no more begat their respective
successors than Queen Elizabeth begat King James.
But to your last favour. “Canton” you put into Coventry ;
I will try to fetch it out by the help of some learned English
writers. Johnson says “It is a small parcel or division of land”
without setting it at the Land’s End. He quotes Sir John Davies
on Ireland whose words were “ only that little canton of land
called the English pale containing 4 shires.” On the verb
“canton” he quotes lesthe, who says “ Families shall canton his
empire into less governments for themselves ;”—also “to have
TO THEOPHILUS JONES, OF BRECON. 19
his territories cantoned out into parcels,” Swift. And Addison
says “to have all the mighty monarchies of the world cantoned
out into petty states.” Berne and other cantons of the Swiss are
not squeezed into a corner. I shall therefore hold to my cantons ;
which my great grandsire W™ Williams who was great grandson
of Bp. Ferrar, displayed on his Father's monument quartered
with the arms as I sent you. For the Rudd’s arms the copper
table was divided into 2 parts; and perhaps my ancestor W™
W™ complimented the Archdeacon Rudd with the former part of
the Table: and a distinct scutcheon of the Boars’ heads was set
over it. In the other half is the mention of Bp Ferrar and his
descendants, as I have sent you, set forth in 1655; and his arms
uartered with W™ being the arms of Rob. Wms. Grandson of
Rob. Ferrar in a distinct shield and place from Rudd’s shield.
The stone work of the monument was repaired a.p. 1767. But
the stone cutter instead of renewing the two distinct scutcheons
of Rudd & W", joined them together, and in his window set
Rudd’s on the side next to the inscription on Rudd, whose Boars’
heads H. Gwynne of Garth placed in his arms for Lady Rudd.
I have seen this coat marshalled in the arms of Sir John Price,
and it was Lord Carbury’s,—see the Peerage. Near 70 years
ago the Rev’. Edw. Yardley took out a scutcheon for my father,
just as you have received the arms from me. But the scutcheon
you have sent contains the arms borne by the Ferrars (or Farrers)
of Enwood Halifax. But I cannot agree with Wright or Halifax
that the Bp. was born at Enwood; tho’ I believe the Ferrars
there were akin to him. The Rev‘ John Watson, on Halifax, 4°
treats of Bp. Ferrar; and only says as to his birth that Thoresby
(p. 196) “seems to think” that he belonged to the family settled
at Enwood. I hope if you mention Browne Willis & Ant. Wood
it will be to contradict and censure them, as they truly deserve.
Of these two calumniators Watson says thus; “ Willis in his
survey says ‘The Bp. became a most miserable dilapidator.’”
But Watson adds “ this writer I think treats his character too
severely ; as likewise does A. Wood.”—Watson might in plain
terms have said, they have both cruelly belied him. His perse-
cutors (who trumped up 56 articles all false and most of them
ridiculously frivolous) charged him nor with being a dilapidator.
No; the Bp made such dilapidators his foes by proceeding
against them. Watson says p. 469 “It is no great wonder indeed
that malice should shew itself on this occasion: two of the chief
managers of the prosecution, D" Young and D* Meyrick had
been removed from their offices by this Bp., as he writes to the
Lord Chancellor “for their covetous respect to lucre.” These
two fled, cowardly; yet afterwards assumed merit, and became
20 LETTERS OF W. WILLIAMS, OF IVY TOWER.
Prelates!! As to Bp. Godwin he was himself a fawning time
server and shrunk from the stern steadiness of Bp. Ferrar.
Watson says at p 470, “ Among the Harleian MSS (see No 42(
of the Catalogue) are several papers touching the Bp’s trial not
in Fox; the book is called the 5 vol. of Fox’s papers bought
of Strype. Burnet 2-215 seems led away by the Bp’s malicious
accusations. _ Watson (p. 244,) says that Thoresby drew up a
pedigree of the Ferrars of Enwood; but shews not the Bp’s
arentage. Watson p 245 gives the arms of Henry Ferrar of
nwood, “on a Bend engrailed sable 3 horse shoes argent.” This
is no reason I should admit these arms to be Bp. Ferrar’s, against
the testimony of my great grandsire. Nor can I admit some of his,
mentioned by you, against the Bp’s own written testimony. As
to the arms you have sent me for those of Lewis Williams, it is
(according to my documents) false heraldry. For his wife carried
the Bp’s estate in Abergwilly to her husband and their issue; &
her arms should be on a small shield in the centre of his!
When Q. Elizabeth established the Reformation, any surnamed
Ferrar affected descent from the Bp (Finis!) so now R
F (more last words) but what signifies a degraded Bp to so
great a man as one who boasted of “his ancestors the Princes of
Wales;” pox takehim. “ F ” is not Celtic, it sounds plaguy
Gothic! As to Pennant’s name, if Gom’r Aey, I need not tell
you that it be pronounced Pen-nant.
I am Sir your sincere & obliged
Ws. WIL.IAMs.
Bp. Ferrar himself has written his name repeated Ferrar, not
Farrer, as the family of Enwood Halifax.
Having (after much preparation & expense) begun this summer
to translate the New Testament, which is wanted, altho of late
years several new translations have come abroad, I have com-
pleated S. Matthew; but from decayed constitution at 74 years
old and avocations I much fear that I shall not finish it, exceed-
ingly requisite as it is!
Theophilus Jones Esquire
Brecon
In a different hand—( Jones’ ? )
Rice Rudd of Aberglasney 276" Bart created Dec. 8
1628. Aza Lion rampant and Canton or
Wm Was. Ivy Tower
Augt 1810
Abt it & abt it
MONA MEDIAVA.
No. XXI.
LLANDEGFAN.
son tL Nien ae
a em | ee, gw
i. hacnaine 7 a 8 yo 4 ial "
% a
\
Wate
Lilandegfan Church.
Tue church in this parish is, in its older portions, of the
beginning of the fifteenth century, though many additions
and alterations have been effected during the present. It
consisted originally of a nave and chancel, but two chapels
have been added, giving it the appearance of a cross-
church. The southern chapel has been enlarged, and
the plan has been rendered by it so anomalous that the
chancel has become one of the most inconsiderable fea-
tures in the building. At the west end stands a tower,
erected by Lord Bulkeley in 1811. Very few architectural
details of any interest remain. ‘The original font of the
22 MONA MEDIEVA—LLANDEGFAN.
church is (1848) in the garden of Nant Howel, and a
stoup on a tall pedestal, of rather doubtful design, serves
for it on the north side of the nave. Against the east
wall of the chancel is affixed a monument, with the half
effigy of a gentleman of the guard, in a red doublet
slashed with black, and the Royal arms on the breast, the
whole in an oval frame; a death’s head crowned above,
and two small badges of three feathers, in labels bearing
“Ich Dien” below. On a tablet in the base is the fol-
lowing inscription :—
TO Y= MEMORY OF
M*® THOMAS DAVIS GENT
SERVANT TO Y® TWO MOST ILLVSTRIOVS PRINCES HENRY & CHARLES
BOTH PRINCES OF WALES AND NOW TO KING CHARLES Y® FIRST MESSENGER
IN ORDINARY OF HIS MTIES CHAMBER WHO IN HIS LIFE TIME IN CHRISTIAN
CHARITIE CONFERR’D ON THIS rue OF LLAN DIGVAN WHERE HE WAS BORNE
Y¥® SOMME OF FIFTY TWO SHILLINGS YEARELY FOR EVER TO Y® RELIEFE OF
Y® POORE IN THIS PARISH THAT IS TO SAY ON EVERY SVNDAY MORNING AFT®
DIVINE SERVICE ONE DOZEN OF BREAD FOR EVER, AND FOR Y® CONTINVANCE HERE
OF HE HATH GIVEN TO y* CHVRCHWARDENS FOVRE SHILLINGS A YEARE FOR EVER,
HE GAVE THIS AGED 62 & AFTER DIED IN GOD’S FEARE AN? 1649,
This is the mother church of Beaumaris, and is dedi-
cated to St. Tegfan, a saint of the sixth century, of whom
Professor Rees (Welsh Saints, p. 238) says,—
“About this period (a.p. 500 to a.p. 542) lived Tegfan, the
son of Cardudwys, of the line of Cadrod Calchfynydd; and
though the number of generations between him and his ancestor
exceeds the usual allowance for the interval of time, it does not
exceed the bounds of probability. He was the brother of Gallgu
Rhieddog, and is said to have been the founder of Llandegfan,
Anglesey.”
The church-yard is a spot of quiet beauty, and con-
tains among other tombs one belonging to two infant
daughters of the author of this paper.
MONA MEDIZVA—PENMYNYDD. 23
PENMYNYDD.
The church consists of a nave and chancel, with a small
chapel at the north-east corner of the former. The in-
ternal dimensions of the nave are 38 feet by 22 feet; of
the chancel, 30 feet by 20 feet. It is most probably of
the beginning of the fifteenth century, and has replaced
a much older building, small fragments of which, parts
of Norman chevron-mouldings, are worked up in the
outer walls. The nave has two entrances, north and
south, the latter under a porch, and has only two lateral
windows, one being of two lights, square-headed, and
trifoliated ; but in the west gable is a window of three
lights, of which an engraving is given. This west end
carries a small gable for two bells. The mouldings are
plain chamfers throughout, and the masonry carefully
finished. The font is a plain octagonal basin without a
shaft, standing on three steps; it has no doubt, as in other
eta = aS eins —
i
Ue nid
\I|aROT Tr" Uy
an ree me Ni
tho er ~~
a
West Window, Nave, East Window, Chancel,
Anglesey churches, replaced a much older one, now
destroyed. In the chapel on the north side of the nave
is a low tomb in the north wall, nearly at the level of the
ground, with a slab so plain that it might almost be sus-
pected to have served for an Easter sepulchre ; it is under
a four-centred arch of the fifteenth century, the upper
24 MONA MEDIZ VA—PENMYNYDD.
curves of which run soon after their origin into straight
lines, bearing a finial on the vertex, while from the ends
of the hood-moulding run up plain shafts, terminating
in finials at the same level with that in the centre. The
workmanship is not careful, and the sections of the
mouldings show this arch to be somewhat later than the
other portions of the building. The chancel arch, of two
orders, plainly chamfered, rises from piers chamfered with
caps under square abaci. In the south wall are two
windows, square-headed, similar to those in the nave, a
priest’s door, and a sedile under a plain pointed arch,
with a reclining back of rather unusual design. The
piscina is in the wall towards the east of this. In the
north wall is a window similar to the two others, and a
doorway now blocked up. The east window is of three
lights, and is here engraved.
In the middle of the chancel formerly stood a magni-
ficent altar-tomb of alabaster, bearing recumbent figures
of a knight and lady; but this was, in 1848, removed for
greater safety to the chapel in the nave, where it is pro-
tected from further injury by a railing. Tradition states
that the tomb was brought hither from the Friary of
Llanvaes at the Dissolution, and that it belonged to some
member of the Tudor family. There is nothing but
tradition for the ground of this statement; it was, how-
ever, considered sufficiently authentic to induce her pre-
sent Majesty to give £50 for the removal and reparation
of this fine monument, not before it was time, for the
parishioners had long been accustomed to chip off por-
tions of the alabaster, and grind them into powder for
medicinal purposes. The body of the tomb consists of
slabs divided into a series of niches and pannelled com-
partments, bearing shields. No figures now remain under
the canopies, and the armorial bearings on the shields
have been so completely obliterated that only in one or
two cases can a chevron be faintly traced. ‘There is no
inscription, nor any other indication whereby to discover
the family of the personages whose effigies have been so
elaborately and beautifully carved. They lie on separate
MONA MEDIEVA—PENMYNYDD. 25
slabs, placed side by side; they are probably portraits,
from the peculiarities of the features; and they have been
executed with the utmost care. All the ornaments are
admirably detailed, and the whole constitutes a good
specimen of art at the end of the fourteenth century. In
the engraving the recumbent figures are given, and the
injuries they have sustained will be easily perceived.
Against the east wall of the chancel, over a projecting
stone serving probably as a credence table, is a stone
slab commemorating one of the connections of the Tudor
family. It has a shield of arms, with these bearings,
viz., Per pale,—1. A chevron between 3 Saracens’ heads,
(to dexter,) 2 and 1; crest, a Saracen’s head. 2. Three
conies, 2 and 1; crest, a coney; and this inscription,—
HERE LYETH INTERRED THE BODY
OF CONNINGESBY WILLIAMS LATE
OF PENMYNYDD IN THE CONNTY (sic) OF
ANGLESEY ESQ™ WHO BEING TWICE
MARRiD HAD FOR HIS FIRST WIFE
MARG OWEN DAUGHTT® & HEIR OF RICH”
OWEN TUDOR OF PENMYNYDD AFORES”
& s? CONNTY (sic) OF ANGLESEY ESQ™ DECED
& FOR HIS SECOND WIFE JANE
GLYNNE HEIR OF PLACE NEWYDD.
IN THE CONNTY OF CARNARVON. DECED
OBYT 26 FEB. A° DIN 1707
ETAT. 69.
Incrusted in one of the walls is a shield, bearing a
chevron between three objects so much defaced as to
render them impossible to be deciphered. They may re-
present the Saracen’s heads of the shields just mentioned.
Gredifael was a saint who flourished in the sixth cen-
tury, and under his invocation this church is erected.
We find the following account of him in Professor Rees’
Welsh Saints, p. 222 :— ‘
“‘Gredifael and Fflewyn, sons of Ithel Hael, were appointed
superintendents of the monasteries of Paulinus at Ty gwyn ar
ARCH. CAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. V.
26 MONA MEDIZVA—PENMYNYDD.
Daéf, Carmarthenshire (Whitland?) Gredifael, whose festival is
Nov. 13, may be considered the founder of Penmynydd, Angle-
sey; and Fflewyn is the saint of Llanfflewyn, a chapel subject to
Llanrhyddlad, in the same county.”
The orientation of the building is nearly due East.
In the church-yard, on the northern side of the chancel,
there was dug up some years ago a considerable quantity
of water-worn, roundish, white stones of amorphous
quartz. These had no doubt been brought here on
occasion of interments, when, as was usual in some parts
of Wales during the middle ages, each mourner brought
and deposited a white stone on or near the grave of the
departed.
Not far from the church, towards the north-west, is
Plas Penmynydd. This house, of the Elizabethan and
Jacobean periods, has replaced one of older date, some-
times called Castell Penmynydd, supposed to have stood
a little nearer the church. | This is said to have been one
of the original seats of the Tudor family, and like Tre-
garnedd, near Beaumaris, its possession may be traced
back long before the Tudors came to the throne. There
are no features of architectural importance remaining in
this house, though all about it testifies to its date. Ona
stone in the wall towards the garden is the following :—
1576
R.O.T.
commemorating Richard Owen Tudor.
Over a doorway in the back premises is a stone thus
inscribed,—
VIVE VT
VIVAS
Above one of the windows is
REPASTV
EST OPVS
LAVS DEO
Inside the stable occurs a stone bearing the date
16
18
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
and over the stable door and window another with
RO
EO
There is a large beam inside one of the outhouses,
apparently much charred. It bears an inscription hardly
decipherable, and it was probably once used in the great
hall of the mansion.
According to tradition this village was the spot whence
issued the young man who married Catherine of France,
Queen Dowager of England. ‘There is little reasonable
doubt that this was one of the cradles of the Tudor family ;
and hence it is more than usually interesting to the Welsh
and English antiquary.
. H. L. J.
1650
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
I mucu regret that various causes of delay have prevented
my making an earlier reply to Mr. Wright’s observa-
tions in the last volume of the Archeologia Cambrensis.'
Although I am quite unwilling to work the controversy
until it becomes threadbare, | feel that it is one which lies
so completely at the foundation of our national history,
that it ought not to be abandoned so long as there remains
a possibility of throwing further light upon it. But before
re-opening the question, I must plead “ Not Guilty” to
two indictments of Mr. Wright’s. After the most careful
examination of my paper read at Monmouth, I cannot
find a single instance in which I have interchanged the
relative position of “ facts and theories ;”* neither am [|
conscious of any tendency to “chop logic’”* beyond the
(as it appears to me) very legitimate inclination to cross-
examine Mr. Wright’s evidence, and to consider how far
his facts are really capable of supporting his conclusions.
1 Archeologia Cambrensis for 1858, p. 289.
2 See pp. 289, 294. 5 p. 294.
28 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
However, upon these points, as upon all others, let the
reader judge between us.
It may be as well to remind those who have followed
the controversy from the beginning, that Mr. Wright and
myself are at issue upon two principal points: I have
attacked his hypothesis of the origin of the Welsh nation ;
and he has made reprisals upon my own theory of the
origin of the Welsh name. It is absolutely necessary to
keep these questions distinct from each other, and, fol-
lowing the order of my former paper, I will treat of the
latter point first, and of the former one subsequently,
concluding with the discussion of certain collateral and
subordinate questions, which have arisen in the course of
the controversy.
In reference to my view of the connection of the word
Welsh, with the names Gael, Gaul, &c., as Mr. Wright
has touched upon it very lightly, I will not spend much
time in defending it. It is by no means a “new hypo-
thesis,” as Mr. Wright appears to suppose, for I observe
that it has already been promulgated by M. Amédée
Thierry, in his Histoire des Gaulois. Perhaps I may be
allowed to add, that I was not aware that this was the case
when my former paper was printed, so that I arrived at
the conclusion by an independent process.* Mr. Wright
doubts “‘ whether the Teutonic Welsch, and the name
Gaul or Gallic, have any relation whatever to each
other.” ° To Mr. Wright’s doubts I can only answer
that I have no doubt on the subject. However, that I
may not appear to reduce the question to a mere balance
of authorities, I will add that the last three letters of the
Teutonic word are merely an adjectival termination, and
that the true root is Wal, which in accordance with an
etymological law with which Mr. Wright must be familiar,
is simply the same thing as Gal. It is no mere resem-
blance, but an absolute identity.° Whether the identity
4 Indeed, the view, as I have since found, is as old as Verstegan.
5 p, 293. 6 Ibid.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH. 29
may not be an accidental one is a totally distinct question.
I have already laid before the reader what appear to me
to be the probabilities on either side of the question, and
have intimated the conclusion which in my opinion in-
volves the fewest difficulties.’ But I will observe, before
I quit the subject, that my theory does not, as Mr. Wright
asserts, rest upon the assumption that the ancient Germans
“were profoundly learned in the science of ethnology.”
When it is remembered that by far the majority of those
who occupied the German frontiers of the Roman empire,
and all those who were separated from the Germans by
the comparatively slight barrier of the Rhine, were not
merely of one race, but were recognized as such, not by
ethnologists, but popularly, it certainly seems to be no
very extravagant supposition, if we conceive that the
Germans called those Welsch whom the Romans called
Gauls, and afterwards extended the term to other provin-
cials to whom they stood in a similar relation. I admit
that “ people in the condition to which these arguments
refer” did not always “call other people by the names
which those people bore among themselves, or among still
other people,” but that they never did so, would be an
assertion somewhat difficult of proof, and I doubt if we
have evidence enough before us to show whether they
“generally” did so, or not. I now quit this part of the
subject, and hasten on to a more important question.
Mr. Wright’s theory (if he will permit me so to desig-
nate it) rests upon two assumptions ; first, that the Welsh
and Breton languages resemble each other more nearly
than could be the case if they had been separated as far
back as the date of the Roman conquest of Britain; and
secondly, that the phenomena of the two countries are such
as to make it more likely that the Welsh are a colony of
Armoricans, than that the Bretons are a colony of insular
Britons. As regards the former assumption, Mr. Wright
appears to acquiesce in my rejection of it, and then, in the
7 pp. 129—133.
30 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
very same paragraph, to argue as if 1 had admitted it.®
Moreover Mr. Wright has quietly ignored one of my
main arguments, referring to this part of the subject.°
If the Welsh, who speak a language which, even in the
thirteenth century, differed widely from that of the Bretons,
were a colony from the Armoricans in the fifth century,
when does Mr. Wright consider that Cornwall was colo-
nized, the inhabitants of which, even in the last century,
spoke a language nearly identical with that of the modern
Armoricans ?
But allowing, for the sake of argument, that we are
reduced to Mr. Wright’s dilemma, and that “ either the
Welsh went over to Gaul and became the Armoricans, or
the Armoricans came over into Britain and became the
Welsh,” I can only repeat that it is a dilemma the tra-
ditional solution of which is, to my mind, far more pro-
bable than that which is offered by Mr. Wright. Before
I proceed to examine the arguments by which the latter
is supported, I must take the liberty of reminding Mr.
Wright, that he has taken no notice of a fact upon which
I have laid considerable stress,’ and which seems to me to
be utterly subversive to his theory. I allude to the first
appearance of the Britons, under that name, in Armorica,
just about the era to which he assigns his supposed
migration from Armorica into Britain. I must also call
his attention to a fact of which he can scarcely be ignorant,
that the Breton language is actually spoken in a very
small portion only of the ancient Armorica,’ and that the
very name of Armorican, when applied to the modern
Breton, is, in fact, one of those “ old words” which, as
Mr. Wright says very truly, are often used “ technically ”
at the present day. I mention this, merely in order to
show that we are not to assume, before we have proved
it, the identity of the modern Bretons with the ancient
Armoricans.
8 See pp. 293, 294. 9 See p. 142. 1 See p, 140.
® In this sense it may be true that there are “ remains of an Armo-
rican language distinct from the Breton,” (see p. 295,) viz., the French
of Haute-Bretagne, Normandy, &c.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH. 31
Having premised so much, I must re-state Mr. Wright’s
argument. I cannot do it better than in his own words,
and I will do so even at the risk of occupying more space
than I am fairly entitled to.
“He asks on what grounds I draw ‘a distinction between the
condition of the two countries,’ 7. e., Armorica and Wales. I
thought that I had sufficiently stated this in the paper which has
given rise to this, I hope not unimportant, controversy. Anyone
who has really studied the Roman antiquities of Wales must know
that it was traversed in every direction by a multiplicity of Roman
roads, which penetrated even into its wildest recesses ; that it was
covered in all parts with towns, and stations, and posts, and villas,
and mining establishments, which were entirely incompatible with
the existence at the same time of any considerable number of an
older population in the slightest degree of independence. Now we
know that the population of Armorica, long before the supposed
migration either way could have taken place, was living in a state of
independence, and even of turbulence, and that it was formidable
in numbers and strength. The Armoricans were almost the heart
and nerve of that formidable ‘ Bagauderie’ which threatened the
safety of the Roman government in Gaul almost before the inva-
sions of the Teutons became seriously dangerous. An attention
to dates will put this part of the question more clearly before the
reader. The great and apparently final assertion of independence,
or revolt from the Roman government, of the Armoricans, which
Mr. Basil Jones quotes from Zosimus, occurred in the year 406;
Honorious acknowledged the independence of the towns of Britain
in 410; and I need hardly add that what is understood by the
Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain occurred many years subse-
quently. During this period, when the towns of Britain must
have been rejoicing in their independence, it is, I think, not pro-
bable that the people of this island would have migrated into
Britanny in such numbers as in a short time to supersede the Armo-
ricans themselves, for I am not aware that there are any remains
of an Armorican language in Britanny distinct from. the Breton.
The subsequent history becomes obscure from the want of records;
but I venture to assert that it is evident, from the few historical
notices we have, (I throw aside altogether the fabulous legends of
a later date,) that the Armoricans were at this time a numerous
and warlike people, that when the Saxon pirates entered the Loire
they sometimes joined them in attacking the Gauls, (as the people
of the Roman province were called,) and sometimes resisted
them ; that they were evidently no less piratical than the Saxons
themselves, and in all probability possessed numerous shipping ;
32 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
that they did make war upon the Roman provinces just about the
time that the Saxons were beginning to settle in Britain, and that
they were driven back into their own territory by the governors
of Gaul. Now I think there is nothing very extravagant in the
supposition that the warlike energy of the Armoricans, having
been repressed on the side of the continent, should have sought
an outlet on the side of the sea, and that many adventurous
chiefs may have collected their followers, taken to their ships,
and, tempted by the known success of the Saxons, passed over
into that part of Britain which the Teutonic invaders had not
reached. I think, then, that the distinction which I have drawn
between the condition of Wales and Armorica, at the time when
the migration from one to the other is supposed to have taken
place, is very plainly stated, and very fairly accounted for.”*
I have extracted this passage at length in order that
the reader may have it before his eyes, while 1 comment
upon it in detail. It is to be observed that Mr. Wright
has not given a single reference to any original authority
in support of his views, so that I am unable to say whether
they are founded upon passages which have not come
under my notice, or upon a different interpretation of
those which have. For instance I can find no evidence
that the population of Armorica was “living in a state
of independence,” “long before the supposed migration
either way could have taken place.” So far from being
able to discover that “the Armoricans were almost the
heart and nerve” of the insurrection of the Bagaude,
I do not even find that the Bagaude were in any way
connected with Armorica. In fact the scanty accounts
of the Bagaude which have reached us, seem to connect
them principally with other parts of Gaul.* Mr. Wright’s
account of the defection of Britain and Armorica respec-
tively is singularly inaccurate, especially in the matter
of chronology, a point upon which he appears especially
torely. I trust I shall not be thought tedious, if I go
again over ground which has been so frequently trodden.
The general invasion of Gaul by the barbarians, which
occurred in the winter of 406, appears to have alarmed
3 pp. 294-296.
4 Zosimus, vi. 2. Life of St. Babolinus (valeat quantum ).
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH. 33
the legions of Britain, as it had virtually cut them off from
Italy, the centre of the imperial power. Accordingly
they raised to the throne in rapid succession Marcus,
Gratianus, and Constantine, the last of whom appears to
have deserved their favour the least, as he retained it
the longest. In the year 407 Constantine crossed over
into Gaul, and occupied himself in strengthening the
frontiers of the empire against the barbarians. He forced
Sarus, who had been sent against him to assist the rights
of Honorius, to retire into Italy. In 408 he sent his son
Constans, whom he had raised to the dignity of Cesar,
into the Spanish peninsula, to secure himself against the
kinsmen and supporters of Honorius. The jealousy of
Gerontius, a Briton, whom Constans afterwards left in
command in Spain, led him to intrigue with the bar-
barians, who made a second general invasion of Gaul in
the same year. The same alarm which two years before
had induced the legionaries in Britain to revolt from the
existing authority of Honorius, now forced the inhabitants
of the country to throw off all allegiance to the Roman
empire.” The example set in Britain was speedily fol-
lowed in the whole of Armorica, and in other provinces
of Gaul. Nothing can be more clearly stated than that
the independence of Britain preceded that of Armorica.°
The supposed acknowledgment of that independence by
Honorius in the year 410, when fairly examined, shrinks
into a very small matter, if it does not vanish altogether.
All that Zosimus tells us, and he is our only authority
for the fact, is that “ Honorius wrote to the cities (or
states) in Britain, and advised them to be on the look
out,” an event which scarcely amounts to an acknowledg-
ment of independence.’ But in fact it is more than
5 It is evident.from the language of Zosimus that this second revolt
was the act, not of the soldiers, but of the people.
6 Zosimus, vi. 2-6. Olympiodorus, apud Photium. Sozomen,
ix. 11. Orosius, vii. 40.
T‘Ovwpiov d€ ypdppaor mpdc rac év Bperravig xpwpyévov médec
pudarrecOar rapayyédAovat, dwpeatc Te apenpapévov rove orparwrac éx
Tév mapa ‘“Hpaxdedvov meupbérvrwy xpnparwr, 6 pév ‘Ovwpioc fy év
ARCH. CAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. V.
34 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
doubtful whether there is any allusion to Britain in the
passage. The context in which it occurs has no reference
to that country, but is chiefly occupied with the history
of Alaric in Italy. Have we any authority for connecting
the name of Alaric with that of Britain? Yes. Olym-
piodorus, as reported by Photius, informs us “ that
Rhegium is the chief town of Britain, from which Alaric
desired to cross over into Sicily, but was detained.”® In
the latter passage, the editors have not hesitated to alter
the text, so as to make it say what it obviously means,
not Britain, but Bruttium. I feel assured that anyone
who reads the sixth book of the history of Zosimus, with
any degree of attention to the connection and progress of
events, will be convinced that the passage which is sup-
posed to mark the final severance of Britain from the
empire, requires a similar emendation, which, indeed, has
been already proposed. The revolt of Britain, then,
preceded that of Armorica, instead of following it, as
asserted by Mr. Wright, after a lapse of four years.
Mr. Wright admits that we possess very scanty data
for the history of Armorica between 410 and 450; but he
has arrived at certain conclusions, from such evidence as
we have, to which I cannot tell how far I am able to
follow him, because I do not know what his evidence is
worth. Before attempting to form any opinion on the
subject I should be glad to have his evidences for the
condition of Armorica during this period laid before me.?
It is true that it was subdued by the Romans’ about the
time that the Saxons were beginning to settle in Britain,
pgoravy aon Thy THY aravraxoU oTpaTwroy émoracdpevog EvvoLAY.—
osimus, vi. 10.
8"Ore rd ‘Phyrov pyrpdronic éort rijc Bperraviac, é ov pnaty 6 ioropixdc
"Addpryov él Lexediay Bovdduevoy wepawHjva éexvoyxeOjjvar.—Olympio-
dorus, apud Photium. Lege Bperridyne, or Bperriac.
9 It does not seem to me that the lines
* Quin et Aremoricus piratam Saxona tractus
“‘ Sperabat” &c.
necessarily prove an alliance between the Armoricans and the Saxons.
See — Apollinaris, Panegyricus in Avitum.
1 Ibid.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH. 35
and it is also true that an army of Britons (whatever we
are to understand by the expression) menaced the Visi-
Goths, occupied Bourges, and were subsequently forced
to fall back upon Armorica.* Allowing, however, what
I am not able to deny, that there is sufficient evidence
that the Armoricans were ‘a numerous and warlike
people”’ at this period, it must be remembered that, little
as we know of them, we know absolutely nothing of the
state of Wales at the same era, and can therefore have no
grounds for drawing any distinction between the relative
condition of the two countries in this respect. Moreover,
the pressure which was felt in Armorica on the side of
the Roman provinces had its parallel in Britain, in the
attacks of the northern and Teutonic invaders. Accor-
dingly, in order to be able to draw a distinction between
the state of Wales and that of Armorica, we are forced
back upon Mr. Wright’s original position, viz., that
Wales, at the close of what is called the Roman period,
was thoroughly Romanized, while Armorica was still
Celtic.
I must therefore proceed to examine the evidence upon
which this position is founded. It is simply this: Wales
was “traversed in every direction by a multiplicity of
Roman roads,” and “covered in all parts with towns, and
stations, and posts, and villas.”* Strangely enough Mr.
Wright never appears to have inquired into the Roman
antiquities of Armorica. Attaching so much weight as
he does to the mute evidence of monuments, it is sur-
prizing that he should not have asked to what extent
the two countries agree or differ in this respect. But it
appears that Armorica bears traces of Roman occupation
in all its parts.* Moreover, it is very remarkable that the
2 Compare Jornandes de Rebb. Grett., c. xLv. with Sidonius Apolli-
naris, Epist. 111. 9, and Greg. Turon., 1. 18. An ingenious theory
concerning Rhiothimus has been developed in Arch. Camb. for 1850,
p- 208. I see no supposition altogether clear of difficulties.
3 Arch. Camb. for 1858, p. 294.
* It appears from M. de Fréminville’s Antiquités de la Brétagne,
that no Roman remains had been discovered in the district of Leon
36 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
phenomenon which first led Mr. Wright to frame the
theory of an Armorican emigration into Wales, exists in
Armorica, that is to say in Basse-Bretagne, no less than
in Wales.’ Who destroyed the Roman towns in Ar-
morica? If invaders, why may they not have been
settlers from Britain? If the inhabitants of the country,
why may not the same have happened in Wales? I do
not see, after all, how Mr. Wright is to escape from the
facile retorqueri potest.
Mr. Wright and myself are to a certain extent at issue
upon the previous question, how far Britain generally had
adopted the language of Rome. One of Mr. Wright’s
main arguments in support of his view is based upon the
name applied by the Teutonic invaders to the inhabitants
of the country. He says,—
“We find that the Teutons had a word [ Walsch, &c.] in their
own language which they appear to have applied especially to
those who spoke the language of Rome.” ®
“We know that the Anglo-Saxon writers often speak of the
inhabitants of this island, whom the Romans conquered, by the
name of Britons, because they had learned that name from the
Roman writers; but we also find that the term they especially
applied to them in their own language was this same ‘Teutonic
word, Welisc, or Weisc. 1 think it perfectly fair to argue upon
this, that the Teutons who came into Britain applied the word in
no different sense to that in which it was used by the rest of their
race, and that they therefore found the people talking the language
of the Romans.”7
What then is the evidence that the continental Teutons,
at the time of the Anglo-Saxon invasion, applied the term
in question “ especially to those who spoke the language
of Rome?’ ‘The statement is supported by an induction
of instances, which I have myself anticipated, and which
only go to prove that the continental Teutons in the
middle ages applied the term to those who spoke lan-
guages derived from that of Rome. Even at the risk of
when he wrote; but it seems from the letter of “A Breton Member,”
in the last volume of the Archeologia Cambrensis, that they have
been found at various points in that district.—p. 420.
5 p. 294. 6 p. 291. 7 p. 292.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH. 37
inflicting upon Mr. Wright another facile retorquert
potest, I will beg the reader to compare his mode of
reasoning with the admirable canon which he has himself
Jaid down :—
“1 would particularly insist on the necessity, in discussions of
this kind, with regard to words especially, of keeping perfectly
distinct the ideas attached to them at different periods, and under
different circumstances ; as for instance, during the Roman period,
during the middle ages, and in modern times, when old words are
‘often applied technically.” ®
“‘ The objections to this [7. e. his own] view of the case,”
says Mr. Wright, “are mere assumptions. What right
have people to say ‘it is very probable that Britain was
much less Romanized than Gaul,’ or ‘I think’ that such
was the case?”’® Because Gaul was first conquered.
Because Gaul was nearer to the source of civilization.
Because Gaul offered a more attractive territory under a
more genial sky. Because the Britons are spoken of
almost to the end as penitus toto divisos orbe, while Gaul
possessed its schools of Roman rhetoric, and contributed
its share to the stock of Roman literature. Because Gaul
has still its Arles and Treves to show, its Maison Carrée
and its Palais Gallien. But even in Gaul, it is by no
means certain that the Celtic language had died out in
remote districts by the fifth century. Not to mention
Armorica, in which it may have been preserved, upon
my view, and must have been upon Mr. Wright’s,—or
Gascony, in a part of which it seems probable that the
old Aquitanian speech is still living,'—there is a certain
amount of evidence that the original languages were
spoken in various parts of Gaul down to a period not far
distant from the times of which we are speaking. The
following facts, the first two of which have been frequently
brought forward, appear to prove the existence of a Celtic
8 p, 289. 9 p. 292.
1 Of course the Aquitanian was not Celtic in one sense, and if it is,
as I here suppose it to be, represented by the Basque, it was not Celtic
in any sense of the word. But if it was able to resist the influence of
Latin, the Celtic language may have done the same.
38 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
language in three different parts of the country at a
comparatively late date.
First, St. Jerome states very distinctly, that a language
differing but slightly from that which was still spoken by
the Galatians, existed in the neighbourhood of Treves.*
We must not forget that Jerome had lived at Treves.
Secondly, Sulpicius Severus, in one of his Dialogues,
represents an Aquitanian as anxious to hear the history of
St. Martin in whatever language the narrator may prefer
to relate it. ‘Speak even Celtic, or Gallic, if you prefer
it, so long as you speak of Martin.” *
Thirdly, Sidonius Apollinaris tells Ecdicius that it is
owing to him that the nobles of Auvergne have “rubbed off
the rust of their Celtic language,”’* and I find it difficult
to interpret the last two instances, and impossible to in-
terpret the first, in any other way than according to their
obvious and literal meaning. As regards the force of
Mr. Wright’s argument in pp. 291, 292, we must re-
member that during the four or five centuries in which
the Roman tongue was mastering that of the Franks, it
would not be difficult for it to absorb that of the Celts.
But the inscriptions which have been found in Britain
“are all purely Latin, without any trace of Celtic lan-
guage, or Celtic people,” and that “not only on the
borders of Wales, but in the very heart of that moun-
2 Hieronym. Prolog. ad Comm. in Galat. lib. 11.
3 Sulp. Sever. Dialog. 1. 20. From comparing this passage with
the first chapter of the second Dialogue, I feel no doubt that Gallice
means the corrupt Latin of northern Gaul, the origin of the Langue d’
oil, and that Celticé means bond fide Celtic. We must remember that
the Aquitanian is speaking hyperbolically, and we must not therefore
suppose that he necessarily understood the Celtic language. If this
view be true, then I do not see how we are to avoid giving a similar
interpretation to the passage quoted below from Sidonius Apollinaris.
4 Epist. m1. 3. “ Mitto istic ob gratiam pueritie tue undique
gentium confluxisse studia literarum, tueeque personze quondam debitum
quod sermonis Celtici squamam depositura nobilitas nunc oratorio stilo,
nunc etiam carminalibus modis, imbuebatur. [Illud, in te affectum
principaliter universitatis accendit, quod quos olim Latinos fieri exe-
geras, deinceps esse barbaros vetuisti.” The last clause of all refers
to his defence of Auvergne against the Goths.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH. 39
tainous country.”> Granted. What follows from this?
That the Celtic language was obliterated “in the very
heart of that mountainous country,” because we find no
Celtic inscriptions there? If so, by parity of reasoning
it ought to have been obliterated in Armorica also,
where, to the best of my knowledge, no Celtic inscriptions
have ever been discovered. But in point of fact the
early monumental inscriptions in Wales and Cornwall,
which date from a time when Mr. Wright would allow
that the language of those countries was Celtic, and which
contain proper names of unmistakably Celtic character,
are, with hardly an exception, in Latin. But I am quite
prepared to admit that during the Roman occupation of
the country, the sort of people who would put up in-
scriptions, or have them put up in their honour, would
speak Latin; so that it is not so much to be wondered
that there should be no “trace of Celtic language, or
Celtic people.”
I ought to express my obligation to Mr. Wright for at
length stating the evidence for the destruction of the
Roman towns in Wales, and for the period of that des-
truction.° Assuming that the examinations which have
already been made are sufficient to set at rest all doubt
as to the class of objects which are or are not to be found
upon the sites of those towns, I still do not feel that the
absence of later coins is an evidence of their destruction
at the so-called close of the Roman period. I do not
think it has yet been made out what sort of money was
current in Wales during the succeeding ages, or, in fact,
whether generally speaking any metallic coinage was in
use. Further, the instances alleged by Mr. Wright of
large Roman towns in that country are, after all, only
four,—Wroxeter, Kentchester, Caerleon, and Caerwent.
The first of these scarcely comes within the prescribed
limits, and has not yet been thoroughly investigated.’
5 Arch, Camb. for 1858, p. 292.
6 See p. 304, note.
7 So far from it, indeed, that I understand that Mr. Wright is going
to superintend further excavations there.
40 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
The second is, to say the least, on debateable ground.
Caerleon, as is admitted by Mr. Wright himself, presents
doubtful appearances. Both Caerleon and Caerwent are
near the coast, and might have easily have been des-
troyed during the general confusion following the with-
drawal of the Roman military power, without supposing
that the Cymry were the destroyers. In the main, how-
ever, it is true, for all that Mr. Wright has shown to the
contrary, in this case as in others, that “like causes produce
like effects.” As geographical position, physical diffi-
culties of approach, and the natural sterility of a country
are immutable causes, it is not probable that we shall ever
find any very great variation in the results. The ex-
ceptions urged by Mr. Wright only prove the rule, as
they have their modern parallels.
I will now turn to one or two minor points, of which I
feel that I ought to take notice before I quit the subject.
I am convinced that Mr. Wright does not mean (as his
words might lead us to conceive),® either that he sup-
poses that all the so-called “‘ Romans” in the provinces,
or indeed in Rome itself, were in any intelligible sense
of the word “of Roman race,”—or that he is ignorant
of the fact, that the conquered inhabitants of Gaul are
invariably styled ‘ Romans” in the laws of their barba-
rian conquerors; that the first victory of Clovis was over
99
a so-called “rex Romanorum ;” and that at the opposite
extremity of the empire, not only those who speak a lan-
guage corrupted from that of ancient Rome, but those
also who speak a language scarcely less corrupted from
that of ancient Greece, boast that they are “‘ Romans,”
except where (in the latter instance) they may have aban-
doned the designation, under the influence of an absurd
revivalism. It is true that, “during the medieval period,
the term Roman was no longer applied to race, but to
language,” so that “the French language was Roman,
the Spanish was Roman, the Italian was Roman.”® But
8 See p. 290. 9 Ibid.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH. 41
why were these languages called Roman? Not because
they were derived from the language of Rome, which
was never known by that name, but because they were
the languages of the “ Romans,” that is to say of the
Romanized inhabitants of Gaul, Spain, and Italy, as
distinguished from the Franks, Burgundians, Goths, or
Lombards. In like manner the modern Greek is called
Roman, obviously not because it was the language of
Rome, but because it is the language spoken by those
who represent the subjects of the Eastern Empire. How-
ever, to say the truth, I do not think that this point very
seriously affects the argument, in the present state of our
knowledge of the history of Britain.
I must request Mr. Wright to take notice, that my
allusion to Gildas was entirely ex abundanti, and was
made only in order to save myself from the charge of
having omitted to observe that his testimony, whatever it
may be worth, bears on the point at issue. I had not as
yet met with any historian of note, who had refused to
accept and make use of the evidence of the work com-
monly attributed to him. I conceive therefore that I was
justified in using the expression which has elicited an
indignant protest from Mr. Wright, and which was very
far from being intended to “decide the question of the
authority of Gildas.” I was so far from being aware
that Mr. Wright had “started the objections to Gildas,”
that I did not even know that he entertained them,
although I judged (as it appears, rightly) that his
historical views were inconsistent with a belief in the
genuineness of the work.’
1 It is beside my purpose to open the question of the degree to which
Britain was Christianized during the Roman period ; but I need hardly
say that the absence of Christian monuments from the ruins of the
Roman towns is not sufficient to prove that Christianity had not spread
among them. What Christian memorials have we in Gaul, or how
many have we even in Italy, belonging to the period now referred
to? With regard to Gaul, the temple of Dea Sequana only proves,
what we know perfectly well from other sources, that heathenism was
not extinct in Gaul in the time of Maximus. But when we recollect
the tumultuous proceedings of St. Martin, about the same time, it strikes
ARCH. CAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. G
42 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
I must beg to observe, that the accuracy of the com-
parison, and the soundness of the logic involved in a
sentence quoted from my paper in p. 301,’ depends
entirely upon the question whether Cumberland is so
called as being the land of the Cumbri, or whether the
Cumbri are so called as being the inhabitants of Cumber-
land. I confess that I had assumed the former solution
of the question, and Mr. Wright has assumed the latter.
Accordingly, with somewhat less than his usual amount
of caution, he charges me with having “ quoted the Saxon
Chronicle very incorrectly.” This indeed is a charge
which, for once, facile retorquert Non potest ; since Mr.
Wright, so far from having quoted any of his authorities
incorrectly, has not taken the trouble to quote them at all.
But although the charge cannot be retorted, it can be
denied. I have not quoted the Saxon Chronicle incor-
rectly, since I have given the exact words in a foot-note.°
It is true that I may have misinterpreted the words, but
the truth or falsehood of my interpretation depends upon
the truth or falsehood of my assumption above stated.
But I must request Mr. Wright to observe, that I did not
pine the words against him, or in order to prove that
umberland was at that time in possession of the Cymry,*
but (assuming that it was in their possession) in order to
mark the earliest mention of them under that name by
other than Welsh writers. When Mr. Wright says that
me as not impossible that the temple of the goddess may have been
overthrown, not by an army of barbarian invaders, but by a mob of
Christian iconoclasts. I may be permitted to add, in reference to the
inscription quoted by Mr. Wright in p. 299, that neither cremation, nor
the formula D.M., are necessarily proofs of Paganism. See Merivale,
History of the Romans under the Empire, vi. p. 275.
2 Tt is no more evident that the Brigantes of Ireland and the
Brigantes of Britain were kindred tribes, than that the Cumbri of
the North and the Cymry of Wales were so.” Mr. Wright adds :—
“T beg to observe that this is a very inaccurate comparison, and not
very sound logic.”
3p. 144
+ If Mr. Wright will take the trouble to read the first sentence of
my P.S. . 149) he will see that when I cited the = rcs
Chronicle, he had not raised the question about Cumberland.
ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH. 43
“this word [Cumbra-land] is always considered to have
had in the mouth of an Anglo-Saxon a simple meaning,
the land of vallies,” he uses an expression which I cannot
describe otherwise than as hyperbolical ; as I confess that
I never heard of this derivation before, whereas that
which I have taken for granted, has been, I think, very
generally accepted and recognized.°
I do not wish, however, to enter at present into any
further consideration of the etymology of Cumberland,
as it would lead the controversy away from the main
or with which it is only secondarily connected. But
think it right to say, before concluding, that although
I have considerable doubts about Mr. Wright’s etymology
for the word caer,’ and although his instances alleged to
prove that it may be Gaelic, are only pertinent upon the
supposition that Gaelic was ever spoken in the districts in
which Carvoran and Caerlaverock are situated (a fact
not yet proved), I withdraw my denial that caer is Gaelic,
as I believe the Irish word cathair would be so pro-
nounced.’ On the other hand I cannot quit the subject
without observing that Mr. Wright’s rendering of Bede
is remarkably inaccurate. Bede does not tell us that the
Angles corrupted Zugubalia into Luel, but that Luel was
the corrupted form of the name by which they designated
the place. And I must observe at the same time that if
caer is a corruption of castrum, it has, to say the least, a
peculiarly Celtic physiognomy, and is to the best of my
knowledge without parallel in any of the Romance lan-
5 Upon second thoughts, I am doubtful whether Mr. Wright means
that this is “ always considered” to be the derivation of the name, or
merely that as the name is “always considered” (an odd way of
putting it, if that is all he means) to be capable of bearing this inter-
pretation, so this is probably the true etymology.
6 The Breton form of the word, ker, enters into the names of many
more places than can be supposed to have been Roman stations.
7 Arch. Camb. for 1858, p. 303.
8 The fact that Bede calls the place Zwel without the Caer, is no
evidence that it was not so called by a Celtic tribe immediately sur-
rounding it. Caer, being an appellative, might easily be prefixed or
not, even by the same speaker on different occasions. The same sort
of thing takes place every day in the case of local names.
44 ON THE ORIGIN OF THE WELSH.
guages. I say this, because I presume that Mr. Wright
supposes his ‘“‘ previous population” who lived intermixed
with the Angles in Northumberland to have talked cor-
rupted Latin, and not Celtic. Otherwise his whole argu-
ment falls to the ground.
In conclusion, I will remark that two problems have
arisen out of this controversy, each of which has an in-
dependent value, while both of them are more or less
involved in the question between Mr. Wright and myself.
First, When and how did the inhabitants of that part
of the Armorican peninsula, in which the Celtic language
still survives, first acquire the name of Britons?
Secondly, Who and what were the race who appear
under the same name, as well as other names, in the north
of England and south of Scotland, and who appear on
different occasions to be clearly distinguished from the
English, the Scots, and the Picts respectively ?
These are two questions which are well worthy the
attention of the Association, but which I refrain from
touching on now, feeling that it is desirable to keep the
present controversy within as narrow limits as possible.
And as regards the controversy itself, whenever it is
brought to a close, I shall request members to get rid
as far as possible of preconceived opinions, and to form
a judgment upon the whole. Any one of the papers
which have been contributed to it, can only give a very
partial view of the merits of the question. They should
all be read connectedly, and in order. Neither party
must be surprized to find himself driven out of more than
one position, which he had previously assumed or main-
tained, in his own opinion, on sufficient ground. This
is only the common law of polemics of every kind :—
“Cedimus; inque vicem preebemus crura sagittis :
“Vivitur hoc pacto: sic novimus.”
W. Basit Jongs.
University College, December 11, 1858.
LLEWELYN AP GRYFFYDD AND THE MORTIMERS.
Ir has been remarked by an eminent individual, that the
history of England is yet to be written; with how much
reater force would the observation apply to the history
of Wales during the middle ages; for the researches of
Thierry, the historian of the Conquest of England by
the Normans, show what rich materials are to be found
among the archives of France to elucidate the annals of
our Principality. Doubtless, historical treasures of equal
importance are buried at the present moment in the
presses of the Vatican and public libraries of Italy, as
well as in those of Spain, where Welshmen fought in
the fourteenth century on the side of Henry Transtamare
against Pedro the Cruel, and assisted in expelling the
English from the latter country. To exhume most im-
portant documents there needs only the indefatigable
industry of some future Thierry.
Political motives induced our English rulers to destroy
almost every record and seal connected with the dominion
of the native princes of Wales, and this can alone account
for their absence among the public records in England ;
but in the Imperial Library, and in the Treasury of Public
Archives at Paris, may be found what we cannot produce
in this country—invaluable parchments with the seals of
the original princes of Wales, and of their disinherited
descendants. Among the latter may be instanced Evain
of Wales, better known as Evain de Galles, a great com-
mander by sea and land, on the side of France, in the
wars against Edward III., and who also went on an
embassy from the French king to the court of Spain;
Jehan Wyn, his relative and brother in arms, (the famous
Poursuivant d’Amours,) so renowned in the pages of
Froissart ;1 and lastly, Owen Glyndwr, the heir and re-
1 Prince Evain of Wales and the Poursuivant each commanded a
body of men-at-arms, all Welshmen, in the service of France, whose
names may be seen on the original muster rolls, in the Imperial
46 LLEWELYN AP GRYFFYDD AND THE MORTIMERS.
presentative of Evain, for he claimed the alliance of the
French king in right of his kindred, and actually bore
the arms of Evain de Galles. These documents are for
the most part in a fine state of preservation, thanks to
the care of the French record keepers, and I throw out a
suggestion that the sooner they are photographed the
better, for fear of some irreparable accident. .
In the Trésor des Archives, 14. J. 665, may be found a
letter addressed by Llewelyn (ap Griffith) to Philip (the
Hardy) King of France, with the fragment of the great
seal attached; the document is on vellum, and though
nearly six hundred years old, the skin is perfectly white,
and the ink jet black; the writing so beautiful, and the
specimen altogether so striking, that some one in old
times, judging from the indorsement in ancient court-
hand of a much ruder character, marked it with the word
* pulchra ;” thus stamping upon the skin admiration of its
beauty—no mean compliment to the civilized state of the
administration of the prince from whose court it emanated.
My present object is, however, to draw attention to two
letters describing not only a painful episode in the history
of Wales, but proving very clearly that there existed a
body of clergy in the Principality in Llewelyn’s reign
who, if they did not question the supremacy of the Pope,
at all events disputed the right of the Archbishop of
Canterbury to issue interdicts into Wales, and who dared
to perform the sacred offices of their religion to an excom-
municated prince and people,—an act of courageous inde-
pendence perhaps unexampled in Europe in those days.
I have made copies of these documents, and they will
find an appropriate place in our Journal, so that we may
have a clear and intelligible translation ; for, strange to
say, they have been misunderstood, and the persons who
figure in them confounded by every writer who has com-
mented upon the final struggle of Llewelyn for the inde-
pendence of Wales.
Library. It may perhaps be unnecessary to explain that the names
so frequently repeated in the muster rolls of a Welsh militia regiment
in the present day are not to be found among them.
LLEWELYN AP GRYFFYDD AND THE MORTIMERS. 47
The first letter, in ancient Norman-French, is written
by John Peckham, Archbishop of Canterbury, to Edward
I., who was then resident at Rhuddlan Castle; it is dated
at Pembridge, in Herefordshire, on Tuesday after the
feast of St. Lucy, 1282. The second letter, in Latin, was
written at the same period by the archbishop to the Bishop
of Bath and Wells, the king’s chief minister, or almoner,
then also at Rhuddlan, and upon the same subject.
The letter addressed to the king commences by ac-
quainting the monarch that there were found upon the
body of Llewelyn when he fell, among other things care-
fully concealed upon his person, a treasonable letter, refer-
ring to certain individuals under disguised or fictitious
names, and intimating that this treasonable letter, together
with Llewelyn’s privy-seal, also found on his person, were
then in the possession of Edmund de Mortimer, who
kept them awaiting the king’s pleasure; and the arch-
bishop tells the king that he had sent a transcript of the
treasonable letter to the Bishop of Ba. (Bath and Wells),
but he prayed that no one (of the traitors) should be put
to death, or suffer mahung or maihem (violently depriving
another of the defensive members of his body) on account
of his report, which he had forwarded merely for the
king’s curiosity or information. .
The primate then proceeds to state that “Dame Maude
Lungespeye had besought him by letters to absolve
Llewelyn, so that his body might be buried in consecrated
ground; but he had told her he could do nothing unless
it could be proved that Llewelyn had shown signs of true
repentance before he expired.”’
“‘Edmund de Mortemer,” he goes on to state, ‘had
told him that he had heard from his vallets (foot soldiers)
who were present at the death, that he (Llewelyn) had
called for a priest before his death.” ‘ But without right
certainty,” wrote the primate, ‘“‘ we could do nothing” to
absolve him.
There was no proof that the call had been responded
to; the dying prince asked for a priest in the moment of
his dissolution, and he asked in vain; if it could have been
48 LLEWELYN AP GRYFFYDD AND THE MORTIMERS.
shown that an ecclesiastic had obeyed the summons, there
would have been proof that the last offices of the church
had been performed over the body of the dying penitent,
and the archbishop’s scruples might have been removed.
Then we come to another paragraph altogether uncon-
nected with the one just quoted, and it evidently refers to
another period of time.
“‘ With that (information) know that the same day that
he was killed, a white monk sang a mass to him, and Sir
Roger de Mortemer supplied the vestments ;” that is to
say, the priest’s vestments to enable the wandering white
monk to perform, not the prayers for the dying, but a
mass in an earlier portion of the day, and perhaps before
the prince set out on his hazardous expedition.
“ Avec so, sachez ke le jur meymes ke il fut ocis, un muygne
blaunc li chaunzo messe, e Messire Roger de Mortemer ad les
vestemens.”
The word ad has been carelessly rendered had by some
translator, and all subsequent writers have blindly followed
each other in copying it, and to reconcile a contradiction
have treated Edmund de Mortimer and Sir Roger de
Mortimer as one and the same person.
The white monk was, perhaps, one of the clerics referred
to in the latter portion of the letter, following the foot-
steps of the prince without the regular vestments of an
officiating priest at the altar; or he might have been a
member of some religious establishment in the neigh-
bourhood ; the vestments were absolutely necessary to
enable the mass to be said; and Sir Roger de Mortimer,
who was Llewelyn’s cousin, and most probably one of
the magnates named in the treasonable letter, supplied
them from his own chapel; for in the middle ages to die
out of the pale of the church, and unassoiled, was the
most dreadful prospect to a Christian, and in his imagi-
nation subjected his soul to eternal damnation.
Most writers have treated the two Mortimers referred
to in this letter as one person; they were different
individuals, each impelled by distinct political feelings.
Edmund Mortimer, with John Giffard, was at the head of
LLEWELYN AP GRYFFYDD AND THE MORTIMERS. 49
the Herefordshire men in pursuit of Llewelyn, who was
known to be in the Marches of South Wales, endeavour-
ing to excite the disaffected borderers to unite with him
against King Edward ; it was Edmund Mortimer’s force
that surprized Llewelyn, and they were his foot-soldiers
who were present at his death and searched his person.
There is no mention of Sir Roger de Mortimer save
in the paragraph referring to the white monk ; he was,
as before stated, closely related to Llewelyn; he owned
large estates in the Marches of Herefordshire, among
them Ewyas Lacy; and Llewelyn’s object in proceeding
to Builth was to induce Roger Mortimer and other mag-
nates, either Welsh or English, to join his standard, or to
remain neuter in the struggle.
There is a significant item in the roll of expenses of
King Edward I., at Rhuddlan, in 1282, under the head
of “ Wardrobe Expenses,’ —
Tuesday, on the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed
Mary, paid for six ells of Web Cloth, and six ells of € 9 13 4
strong fine linen, bought for pennons and Welsh
Standards of Ewyas, and for making of the same.
Why were these pennons and Welsh standards of Ewyas
made at Rhuddlan? Were they Roger Mortimer’s ensign
in the field? If so, is it not reasonable to conclude that
they were intended for some ruse or strategetic movement
against the Welsh prince ?
“ Master R. Giffard” had under his command upwards
of one thousand archers at Rhuddlan, in 1282. John
Giffard is stated to have acted with Edmund de Mortimer
when Llewelyn was surprized at Aberedwy ; is it not
probable that Llewelyn mistook the force for a friendly
one by reason of the Welsh standards of Ewyas thus
manufactured under Edward’s own eye at Rhuddlan ?
These crude suggestions are tendered with diffidence ;
but it is hoped they may, like a ray of light thrown into
a vault, excite closer examination into ancient records
bearing upon our national history. Should they be
favourably entertained, I may hereafter draw attention to
the interesting memorials of the gallant Evan of Wales,
ARCH. CAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. H
50 LLEWELYN AP GRYFFYDD AND THE MORTIMERS.
and of his companions in arms, John Wyn, and other
Welshmen, who fought in the French armies during the
great struggle against Edward III., towards the close of
the fourteenth century.
Wu. Huaues.
Rhyl.
Letter from Archbishop Peckham to King Edward I.
A Trechir Seyner Ed‘ Deu grace Rey de Engleterre Seynior d
Irelande Duc d Aqutain, frere Jan par la suffrance Deu
Ercevesque de Canterbir Primat de tut Engleterre saluz en
graunt Sivhinine.
Sire,—Sachez ke ceus, ke furent a la mort Lewelin tru-
verent au plus privé lu de son cors méime, choses ke nus avoms
veues; entre les autres choses ili ont une lettre disguisee par faus
nuns de traysun.
E pur co ke vus seyez, nus enveyum le transcrit de la lettre a
le Evesk de Ba; e la lettre meymes tient Eadmund de Mortemor,
e le prive Seel Lewellin a ses choses vus purrez aver a votre
pleysir; e co nus maundum pur vus garnir, e nun pas pur ce ke
nul en seyt greve, e vus priums ke nul ne sent mort; ne mayhun
par nostre maundement, e ke sce ke nus vus maundums seyt fete.
Ovekes co, sire sachez, ke dame Mahaud Lungespeye nus
pria par lettres ke nus vosissimus asoudre Lewelin ke il peust
entre enselevi en lu dedie; e nus li maundames ke nus ne frums
riens si len ne poet prouver ke il mustra Seigne de Verraye re-
pentaunce avant sa mort.
E si me dist Edmund de Mortemer ke il aveyt entendu par
ses valles ke furent a la mort ke il avet demaunde le Prestre
devaunt sa mort.
Mes sauntz dreyte certeynete nous nen frems riens.
Ovec co sachez ke le jur meymes ke il fut ocis, un Muygne
blaunc li chaunzo messe e Messire Roger de Mortemer ad le
vestemens.
Ovec so sire, nus vus requerums ke piete vus prenge de Clers
ke vus ne suffrez pas ke len les ocie, ne ke len lers face mau de
cors.
E Sachez Sire Dieus vus defende de mal, si vus ne le desturbez
a votre poer, vus cheez en sentence, kar suffrir ce ke len peut
disturber vaut consentement.
E pur ce sire vus priums ke il vus pleyse ke il Clers, qui sunt
in Snaudone, sen puissent issir e quereler mieuz, one lur biens en
Fraunce, ou ayllurs; kar pur co ke nus creums ke Snaudone
serra vostre se il avient ke en conqueraunt, ou apres len face mal
LLEWELYN AP GRYFFYDD AND THE MORTIMERS. 51
as Clers, Dieus la rettera a vus, e votre bon renun en serra blesmi,
e nus enserrums tenuz pur lasches.
E de ces choses Sire si il vust plest maunder nus vostre pleysir,
kar nus i mettrum le conseyl ke nus purrums, ou par aler la, ou
par outre voye.
E Sachez Sire ke si vas ne fetes nostre priere vus nus mettrez
en tristur, dunt vus instrum ja en ceste vie mortale.
Sire Dieus gard vus, e kaunt a vus apent.
Cette lettre fu escrite a Pembrugg le jeodi apres la Seynte
Lucie.—Rymer, vol. ii. p. 224.
Letter from Archbishop Peckham to the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
De Cedula, infra Femoralia Lewelini quondam Principis Walliz
inventa multorum nomina Magnatum continente.
Frater J. permissione divina Cantuaf} Eccl"* minister humilis
totius Anglize Primas Venerabili in Chris® Patri D° B Dei grat
Bathonem & Wellen Epis® Salutem & fraterne dilectionis in Dom?°
continuum incrementum.
Quia que in Domi nos' Regis Dapn™ & periculum vergere
dinoscuntur, detegere debet fidelis quilibet & ea sibi nullatenus
occultare ; nosque inter alios ipsius honorem & magnificentiam
ab inimicorum insidiis esse tutam intime affectantes, mittimus
vobis quandam cedulam presentibus interclusam obscuram qui-
dem verbis & fictis nominibus conceptam cujus transcriptum
uod habet dominus Ede Mortuo mari inventum fuit in bracali
ewelini quondam principis Walliz, una cum sigillo suo parvo
quod sub salva teneri facimus custodia Domino Regi, si placuerit
transmittendum.
Ex qua quidem cedula satis conjicere potestis quod quidam
magnates vicini Wallensibus sivé Marchienses sive alii non satis
sunt Domini Regis beneplacitis uniformes circa quod Dominium
nobis & vobis est nullum periculum proveniat corporale et de hoc
solicite caveatis.
Ad hee intelleximus quod non nulli Clerici apud Rothelan in
opprobium Cleri & Eccl contemptum inter predones & male-
factores alios cotidie capitali sententia puniuntur; quod ne de
cetero fiat vestre solicitudinis studium apponatis.
Et certe dolemus valde de Clericis illis, qui maneant in Snau-
donia desolati, quod libenter nobiscum adduxissimus ad propria,
dum in partibus illis extitimus si hoc clementize Regi placuisset;
nec poterit se Dominus Rex excusare saltem de favore, si de eis,
quod avertat Deus, male contingat: unde si quid pro eis sciveritis
aut obtinere potestis, quod ad eorum libertatem & securitatem
possit nostro ministerio expedire, scribatis nobis & nos parati
52 LLEWELYN AP GRYFFYDD AND THE MORTIMERS.
erimus pro eis ab instantibus periculis eruendis ad honorem Det
quantam poterimus etiam corporaliter laborare.
Preeteréa sunt quidam Dei & Eccles” inimici, quos nuper in
Exon Dioc. visitantes, jurisdictioni nostree & processibus nostris
invenimus multipliciter adversantes mandata nostra & Eccl”
dampnabiliter contempnendo; propter quod meruerunt a nobis
+e ew a th lata tempore majoris excommunicationis
sententia exigente justitia innodari ne igitur se militie sue in
contemptum Ecclesiastice discipline: valeant gloriari aut alios suis
perniciosis exemplis inficiant pro captione eorumdem excommu-
nicatorum, prout per nost*™ patentam litteram petimus, rescribatis
si placet.
e Benivolentia autem vestra quam ad nos geritis, continue
negotia nost* feliciter Fraternit" vestrae quantas valemus gratiarum
actiones rependimus; parati semper vestris beneplacitis quantum
secundum Deum possumus favorabiliter assentire.
Valeat vestra Fraternitas in Ch°® semper & virgine gloriosa ;
nobis si quid apud nos volueritis, cum fiducia rescribentes.
Si Dom’ Rex velit habere transcript illud, quod inventum fuit
in bracali Lewelini, poterit ipsum habere a Dom? Eadmundo de
Mortuo Mari qui custodit illud cum Sigillo privato ejusdem cum
age 38 aliis in eodem loco inventis; nec est periculum hoc
om°® Regi insinuare, quod ad ejus premunitionem tantum
agimus ; faciat tamen ulterius quod sibi viderit expedire.
awn R Bathon et Wellen Episcopo.—Rymer, vol. ii. p.
[We hope at some future period to lay accurate copies
of the MSS. and seals mentioned in this paper before the
Association. The proper steps have been taken for this
purpose.—Ep. Arcu. Cams. |
EARLY INSCRIBED STONES OF WALES.
Tue two early inscribed stones, of which engravings are
now given for the first time to the public, have been
preserved by the care of one of our members, Charles
Wynne, Esq., of Pentrevoelas, on the lawn of whose
house, at Cefn Amwlch, Caernarvonshire, they are now
deposited.
Mr. Wynne states that they were brought from a small
farm on his estate, called Gors, between Cefn Amwlch
and Aberdaron, and that they stood in what is supposed
to have been the burial-ground of an old church, the site
of which is still discernible. About fifteen years ago the
tenant was going to bring the spot into cultivation, and
the stones were then removed, for safety, to their present
resting-place. Mr. Wynne conjectures that this church
may not improbably have been one of the chain of similar
buildings which were erected along the ancient route to
Bardsey from Bangor, through Caernarvon, Clynnog,
Llanaelhaiarn, &c. This supposition appears well founded,
for either the stones may have been primarily erected and
inscribed there, or they may have been brought thither
from Bardsey itself after the dissolution of the monastery.
The line of road for pilgrims to the Isle of Saints went
most probably through Nevin and Tudweiliog; but
whether it thence proceeded through Meyllteyrn, Bryn-
croes, and Aberdaron, to the eastward of Mynydd Cefn
Amwlch and Rhos Hirwaen, or else to the westward of
those hills, by the sea-coast, through Llangwnadl and
Bodferin to Eglwys Fair, at the extreme point of the
promontory, is not quite certain. The farm of Gors
(query, Glan-y-Gors ?) lies near Bodwrdda and Ffynnon
durdan, described in Arch. Camb., First Series, iv. p.
208, and is near the former of these two lines of road.
The stones themselves are almost cylindrical in form,
with rounded pear-shaped ends, very smooth in surface,
and seem to be water-worn boulders, brought perhaps
from the sea-shore.
INSCRIBED STONES AT CEFN AMWLCH.
i
BA
4
Stone at Cefn Amwlch,
The accompanying illustrations are made from rub-
bings kindly sent by Mr. C. Wynne, and will give an
INSCRIBED STONES AT CEFN AMWLCH.
Stone at Cefn Amwlch,
idea of the general appearance of the stones and their
inscriptions, which, it will at once be seen, are of a cha-
racter quite unlike that of any of the inscriptions hitherto
published, not only as regards the form of the letters, but
56 INSCRIBED STONES AT CEFN AMWLCH.
also the style of the inscriptions themselves. It is evident
that they are cotemporary, and I should be inclined to
regard them as of the tenth or eleventh century, that is,
some time before the introduction of the angulated Gothic,
or rounded Lombardic (as they are miscalled) letters.
They record the sepulture of ecclesiastics ; the first stone
showing them to have been members of a fraternity.
The records of the locality will probably afford a clue to
the history of this establishment. The first and most
important of these stones is evidently to be read,
SENACVS
PRSB
HIC IACIT
CVM MVLTITV
DINEM
FRATRVM.
The long thin form of the entirely Roman capitals of
this inscription will attract attention, as well as the mode of
contraction of the word presbyter, and the extraordinary
conjunction of most of the letters of the fourth and fifth
lines. The false Latinity of the word multitudinem is
almost surprising. The lower part of the stone is much
tubbed, and the letters FRE ET ( fratre et
Unless it were to record the burial of the superior of
the community, and a number of his companions, perhaps
slaughtered at one time, the formula is certainly a curious
one. ‘The second stone is easily to be read,
MERACIVS
PBR
HIC
IACIT.
Except in the conjunction of the first and second
letters, the ill-shaped third letter R, (the bottom stroke of
which should join the first of the following A,) and the
equally ill-shaped B in the second line, this inscription
ST. GERMANUS. 57
does not offer any observation of note. The length of
the first of these stones is 3 feet 6 inches, and its diameter
varying from 6 to 18 inches ; and the length of the second
stone is 3 feet, and its width varying from 6 to 12 inches.
The letters vary from 24 to 34 inches in length.
The engravings have been reduced by camera lucida
from the rubbings.
J.O. Westwoop, M.A.
Oxford, December, 1858.
ST. GERMANUS, OR GARMON, BISHOP OF AUXERRE.
Sr. Germanvs, or Garmon, belongs to the “debatable
ground” between history and legend. Hence a critical
account of him would require much sifting of authorities.
Yet he was so largely concerned in an eventful crisis of
the fortunes of the British Church, that some sketch of
his biography, even without much care to distinguish its
more fanciful features, may be thought not unworthy of
attention.
Of the saint’s early days we find the following story :—
He possessed a large estate, and found amusement in
hunting. After each day’s sport he used to hang the heads
of the beasts he had slain on a pine-tree in the town of
Auxerre, until Amator, bishop of that see, caused this
tree to be cut down. Garmon vowed revenge ; but, before
he put his threat into execution, the bishop was warned in
a vision that his death was nigh, and that he who threat-
ened him would succeed him in his bishopric. Accordingly
he seized Garmon, and ordained him deacon. When Gar-
mon recovered from his astonishment, ‘“‘God who had
directed the whole affair, so touched his heart, that upon
the death of Amator, a few days afterwards, he was chosen
to succeed him, and made his life a model of the episcopal
character.” In allusion to this legend St. Garmon is
ARCH. CAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. I
58 ST, GERMANUS.
represented as a bishop, with dead or hunted beasts lying
around him."
St. Garmon had been bishop ten years, when, about
420, the Pelagian heresy disturbed the church in Britain;
and, according to Constantius of Lyons, a deputation was
sent from thence to solicit the aid of the Gallican bishops.
A synod was convened, at which it was determined to
send over Germanus, Bishop of Auxerre, and Lupus,
Bishop of Troyes.* The account given by Prosper Aqui-
tanus,’ that the mission was sent by Pope Celestine, at
the instigation of Palladius Diaconus, seems improbable,
as the Pope was then unfriendly to the Gallican Church,
which he accused of semi-Pelagianism, and therefore
would hardly send deputies from thence.
St. Garmon is called son of Rhedyw, or Ridigius, an
Armorican prince, and uncle of Emyr Llydaw. He and
his companion Lupus are represented as braving the sea
at an inclement season.* During their voyage a fearful
storm arose ; billow after billow dashed over the frail bark
until it well nigh sank; St. Garmon slept, the tempestuous
gale rocking him in gentle slumber; but on the sailors
awakening him, the bishop rose and called all to join him
in prayer, when immediately the thunders ceased, the
winds were hushed, and the waves lulled into calm.
Having landed in Britain, the bishops held a conference
at St. Alban’s with the Pelagian doctors, which Fuller
tells us, “by God’s blessing was marvellously powerful
to establish and convert the people.” A small chapel at
St. Alban’s was afterwards dedicated in the name of St.
Germanus.
According to Matthew of Westminster, Germanus and
Lupus arrived in Britain a.p. 446, and, two years after-
1Compare Mrs. Jameson’s Sacred and Legendary Art, Introd.
p- 28.
2 Lupus, or in Welsh Bleiddian, was brother to Vincentius Lirinensis,
and husband of Pimeniola, the sister of Hilary, Archbishop of Arles.
3 Mon. Hist. Brit. p. Ixxxii. 1.; and Rees, Welsh Saints, pp. 119,
120.
* Bede, Hist. Eccl. i. p. 17.
ST. GERMANUS. 59
wards, they were present at that victory which is still
commemorated by a pyramidal stone on Maes Garmon,
or the field of Germanus. In Rymer’s Feedera, i. 443,
‘the battle is said to have taken place about the year 447.
Although the Saxons are not here mentioned as engaged
in the battle, and their introduction by Vortigern is dated
in 449, there is some reason to think, with Archbishop
Ussher, that the invaders, termed by Fuller “ straggling
volunteers,” may have been Saxons, who, before the invi-
tation of Vortigern, made inroads on the coasts. We learn
from Ammianus Marcellinus® and other writers, that they
were in the habit of making frequent incursions into the
island ; and, even before the Romans resigned their sway
in this country, they found it necessary to appoint an
especial officer to watch the motions of the Saxons, who
was called “comes littoris Saxonici per Britannias.”
By Nennius the reign of Vortigern is placed about
the year 440,° the legendary Hengist and Horsa in the
year 447, and the mission of St. Garmon about that
period. According to the cursory account given by
Bede, the arrival of the bishops took place some years
before that of the Saxons,’ probably in 429, and the arrival
of the Saxons in 450.° He alludes to the defeat of the
“ Saxones Pictique junctis viribus.”
Constantius of Lyons, who wrote the life of St. Garmon
within thirty-two years of the saint’s death, gives the date
of the Victoria Alleluiatica as a.p. 420, and he further
says that the battle was fought between the Britons and
“a crowd of pagan Picts and Saxons.” Probably it was
on this authority that the date of 420 was inscribed on the
monument erected by Mr. Nehemiah Griffith, of Rhdal.
5 Lib. xxvi. c. 4; Mon. Hist. Brit. p. xxxiii.
6 Hist. Brit. xxviii. 7 Eccl. Hist. i. 17.
8 Eccl. Hist. i. 15. So Florence of Worcester begins his Chronicle
with this event in the year 450, but building upon Bede.
ST. GERMANUS.
Ad Annum
ccoccxx
Saxones Pictiq. bellum adversus
Britones junctis viribus susceperunt
In hac regione, hodieq. Maes-garmon
Appellati: cum in preelium descenditur,
Apostolicis Britonum ducibus Germano
Et Lupo, Christus militabat in castris :
Alleluia tertio repetitum exclamabant ;
Hostile agmen terrore prosternitur ;
Triumphant
Hostibus fusis sine sanguine ;
Palm Fide non Viribus obtenta.
M. P,
In Victoriz Alleluiatice memoriam
MDCCXXXVI.
If we may trust our Bede, he describes minutely (book
i. ch. 20) the Lenten season of humiliation as over, the
solemnities of the paschal festival as duly celebrated in a
church formed of interwoven branches of trees (“ frondi-
bus contexta’’) and flowers of the forest. The Britons
had both sought the charm of the presence of the Gallican
bishops, and many of them had seized the opportunity of
being baptized. The stream of the Alyn is flowing past,
and the army halts on its banks. The spot where the
sacred rite was administered may be imagined as near
Rhial; and the more so, if we accept the conjectural
etymology of the opposite mansion-house, Gwysaney, as
a corruption of Hosannah. Fuller at least, following
Ussher, says, “the good bishop chose a place of advan-
tage near the village called at this day by the English
Mold, by the British Guid-cruc, in Flintshire, where the
field at this day retains the name of Maes Garmon.”’®
The Christians, clad in the snow-white robes worn by
the newly baptized soldiers of Christ, (recens de lavacro
exercitus, says the good Bede,) filed up the hill over-
looking the lovely vale of Mold. Information arrived
9 Fuller, Church History, i. p. 30. A well on the spot called
Ffynnon Gwaed (or Bloody Well) is mentioned in the Cambro-
Briton for August, 1820, p. 140.
ST. GERMANUS. 61
that the foe was approaching, having been on the watch
for an unguarded moment. There was still time for the
bishop to summon the Christian army to “a place of ad-
vantage.’ Just sworn soldiers of a heavenly king,— their
bodies still sparkling from the bright baptismal stream,
—who can wonder at the glorious victory achieved over
their pagan enemies ?
St. Garmon instructed his men to take up the words
he should utter, and at a given signal the triumphant
shout of “ Hallelujah” echoed through the vale. The
cry was taken up from the opposite heights, and the effect
of this Hallelujah, uttered by many voices, was such a
panic, that the enemy fled without striking a blow. In
the confusion which followed, many were drowned in the
river Alyn, “lately the Christians’ font, now the pagans’
grave.”
The church of Llanarmon, in [4l, Denbighshire, is
believed to commemorate the spot where the Easter
festival was solemnized by the bishop in the wattled
fabric. In Leland’s days pilgrimages were made to this
spot on the vigil of St. Egidius, and costly gifts offered."
The first mission of St. Garmon lasted about two years.
It is worthy of note that the ecclesiastical discipline of
the church in Britain underwent some important changes
during this mission of St. Garmon. Very few, if any,
churches in Wales are traceable to a higher date than his
first visit; till that period the clergy resided chiefly in
towns with their bishop, and from thence visited their
flocks. As, however, a decree had been made at the
Council of Vaison, in Gaul, a.p. 442, “that country
parishes should have presbyters to preach in them as well
as the city churches,” it was natural that the Gallican
bishop should introduce the change into Britain. Ussher
mentions that, in an anonymous treatise written in the
eighth century, St. Garmon is said to have introduced
the Gallican liturgy into this country.’
We do not wish to detract from the good deeds of
this saint, when we gravely view the unlikelihood of
1 Pennant’s Tour in Wales, i. p. 380.
2 Collier, Eccl. Hist. i. p. 112.
62 ST. GERMANUS.
his having been the founder of the monastic institutions
of Llancarvan and Caerworgorn. The inconsistency of
statements bearing on this point, as narrated in Achau
y Saint, leave little choice as to a conclusion. He is
said in one place to have appointed Iltutus principal,
and Lupus (or Bleiddian) bishop, of the college of Caer-
worgorn. Genealogies prove that Iltutus was too young
at that time, and he may rather be said to have lived
some eighty years afterwards. He was a soldier, not an
ecclesiastic, in his early youth. The Book of Llandaff
states that Iltutus received his appointment from St.
Dubricius,’ who lived in an age succeeding that of Ger-
manus. Therefore, unless we imagine an appointment of
Dubricius by St. Garmon to the see of Llandaff, we must
consider the Welsh records on this point incorrect.
According to Constantius, Germanus visited Britain a
second time, a.p. 449, accompanied by Severus, Bishop
of Triers. Archbishop Ussher calculates that this second
mission took place a.p. 447. In allusion to this event
we may quote from an ancient poet :—
“Tu que O, cui toto discretos Britannos
Bis penetrare datum, bis intima cernere magni
Monstra maris :”*
We are told that great success attended this mission of
St. Garmon, and that the strength of the Pelagian heresy
was so diminished that it never rose to power again.
Among the legendary traditions recorded by Nennius,
and others, connected with his second visit, (although
Ussher attributes it to his first mission,®) is the follow-
ing :—
Benlli ab Benlli Gawr, a chieftain, refused hospitality
to the bishop; but Ketelus, or Cadell Deyrnllug, his
swineherd, killed his only calf, with which he kindly
3“ A Dubricio Landavensi episcopo in loco, qui ab illo Lan-iltut,
id est Ecclesia Iltuti, accepit nomen, est constitutus.””— Ussher from
the Registum Landavense. Note in Rees’ Welsh Saints, p. 123.
See the arguments there.
4 Ericus Antissiodensis in Vita 8. Germani, iv. 3, § 118. Acta SS.
die 21 Julii, T. vii. p. 343, ed. Bolland.
5 De Primordiis, cap. xi.
ST. GERMANUS. 63
entertained the bishop and his companions. The legend
adds that the next morning the calf was found restored
to life by the side of its mother. Also, that Benlli was
deposed by the bishop, and the swineherd succeeded to
his territories, which afterwards passed to his descen-
dants. Such a story can gain but little from the supposed
corroboration that one of the hills in the Clwydian range
is called still Moel Fenlli, or Benlli’s hill, remarkable as
a strong British encampment. In this district, which
might have been part of the possessions of either Cadell
or Benlli, there is a church called Llanarmon Dyffryn
Ceiriog, also a chapel, subject to the church of an ad-
joining parish, called Llanarmon Fach.
Far more striking than the above is the pretty story
given by Nennius,—({ 39, ed. Stephenson,) of the guilty
Vortigern’s being denounced and excommunicated by
St. Garmon and all the clergy (“ Regem corripere venit
cum omni clero Britannico’’). Considering the crime
ascribed to Vortigern, we here see that the influence of
the clergy, even in its most arbitrary acts, was used on
the side of morality and Christian virtue. It is also
pleasing to notice that when the old king fled to lay his
“orey discrowned head,”’ first in the recesses of North,
and then of South Wales, the persevering saint is repre-
sented as following him into both his wild retreats, and
exhorting him to a tardy repentance,—-‘ Solito more
S. Germanns eum secutus est, et ibi jejunus cum omni
Clero tribus diebus totidemque noctibus mansit ;” and it is
only on the continued obduracy of the old king, who had
apparently returned to druidical superstitions, that the
fire from heaven is represented as falling and consuming
the tyrant and traitor, with his faithless wives, and un-
hallowed race.—(Nennius, § 47.)
Having settled Britain in good order, St. Garmon re-
turned to his own country, when his aid was called for by
the inhabitants of Britanny, to avert a great danger. The
renowned general Aétius had ordered Eoctor, king of the
savage tribe of the Alani, to punish the people of this
province on account of a rebellion. The holy bishop fears
no danger, but shielded only by his grey hairs and his
64 ST. GERMANUS.
sanctity, he passes safely through the pagan host, and
stands before their king. Eoctor was going to ride on,
but Germanus held him back. Such boldness astonishes
the barbarian—he pauses, and promises to spare the pro-
vince until the bishop can obtain pardon for the people
from the imperial government. Germanus hastened to
Italy to gain this forgiveness. On his way he joined a
company of artizans who had been labouring in foreign
countries. A lame old man, heavily laden, was too weak
to cross a stream with the rest of the party, so the bishop,
having first conveyed the baggage over, returned and
carried the old man himself.
When the bishop was coming out of Milan, where he
had been preaching, alms were begged of him by the
poor. Turning to the deacon who accompanied him, he
inquired what sum they had remaining. He was answered,
“only three gold pieces.” ‘Then give the whole sum.”
“Whence shall we get food to day,” inquired the deacon ?
The bishop repeated his wish, replying that “God will
feed his own poor.” The deacon, with worldly prudence,
kept back a piece secretly. As they journeyed on, two
horsemen overtook them to crave a visit from Germanus,
in the name of a great landowner, who with his family
were in affliction. His companions entreated the bishop
not to turn out of his way, but he made answer, “the
first thing with me is, to do the will of my God.” When
the messenger understood that the bishop was going with
them, they gave him the sum of two hundred solidi (a
gold coin in those days worth 17s. 8d.) which had been
sent for the use of the bishop. Turning to the deacon
he said, “‘ take this, and understand that you have with-
drawn a hundred such pieces from the poor, for had you
given the three gold pieces, the rewarder would have
given us to-day three hundred solidi.”
At the imperial court of Ravenna, Germanus received
universal respect, and easily gained the request which was
the object of his visit. The Empress Placidia sent the
bishop at his lodgings a silver vessel of costly provisions,
in return for which he sent her a wooden dish containing
such coarse bread as he was accustomed to eat. The
ST. GERMANUS. 65
empress valued it as a precious memorial, and had the
platter enchased in gold. The bishop divided the pro-
visions sent him among his attendants, but retained the
silver dish that he might use it for the benefit of the poor.
During his stay at Ravenna, while discoursing with the
bishops on religious topics, he said, ‘‘ Brethren, I give you
notice of my departure from this world. The Lord ap-
peared to me last night in a dream, and gave me money for
travelling. When I inquired the object of the journey, he
answered, ‘ Fear not; I am not sending thee to a foreign
country, but to thy fatherland, where thou wilt find
eternal rest.’”” He would not listen to the interpretation
which the bishops tried to give, for he said, “I know
what fatherland the Lord promises his servants.” ‘To this
fatherland he was soon removed, on July 31st, a.p. 448.°
The following churches in England and Wales are
dedicated in the name of this saint :—
Llanarmon in [al, Denbighshire; Llanarmon Dyffryn
Ceiriog, ditto; St. Harmon’s Radnorshire; and Llan-
fechan, Montgomeryshire. The chapels are the follow-
ing :—Llanarmon under Llangybi, Caernarvonshire ;
Bettws Garmon under Llanfair Isgaer, ditto ; Capel Gar-
mon under Llanrwst, Denbighshire; and Llanarmon-Fach
under Llandegfan, ditto. The ancient Cathedral of the
Cornish Britons, as well the Cathedral in the Isle of Man,
were dedicated in his name: Germansweek, Devon; Selby
Abbey, in the joint names of SS. Mary and Germanus.
It may be worth adding, that there is not the slightest
authority for Mr. Algernon Herbert’s strange opinion,
ascribing to St. Garmon an esoteric Druidism under the
veil of Christianity. On the contrary, his denunciations,
both of the Pelagian doctrines and of Vortigern, place
him in the strongest opposition to whatever traces of
Druidism may have survived in Britain in his age. And
although he would not, as a Gallican, have favoured the
pretensions of Augustine in a later age, he comes down
6 St. Germanus died at Ravenna, on a mission to Aétius in behalf
of the people of Britanny.—Bede, Eccl. Hist. i. 21. Compare
Neander’s Christian Memorials, p. 344, ed. Bohn.
ARCH. CAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. K
66 OBITUARY,
to us as a fair representative of the ecclesiastical sentiment
of his time, and as having lived in the fullest communion
with the Catholic Church. He is not mentioned by Gildas
or his biographer; so that the stories in Nennius are the
earliest native insular accounts of him. Upon these, and
upon the broken narrative in Bede, with the aid of his
Gallican biographer Constantius, and the brief, but sus-
picious, notice in Prosper Aquitanus, all the later autho-
rities have built whatever history or legend attaches to
this celebrated name. We may deduct what we please
on the score of legendary imagination ; but the churches
dedicated in the saint’s name remain as a memorial of
the important part which he played, although a Gallican
bishop, in the ecclesiastical history of Great Britain.
Emity Octavia WILLIAMS.
Rhial Isa, July, 1858.
Obituary.
Sincz the publication of our last Number, another of the oldest
friends of the Association has been taken away from us, through
the decease of Archdeacon Wittams, of Cardigan. We owe
it to his memory to say that he was one of the earliest promoters
of the Cambrian Archeological Association, and that he often
took an active, always a cheerful, part in the proceedings of our
Annual Meetings. His contributions to the memoirs of our
Society are well known to members; and though they have given
rise to much controversy, yet at least they testify to his hearty
good will towards the promoting Welsh archeological studies.
The Archdeacon was one of the few remaining members of a
school of antiquaries intermediate between such as Davies, of
the Celtic Researches, and the archeologists of the present day ;
and it is no small testimony to the activity of his mind, that he
always kept up in his reading with the current of modern re-
searches, though his early training did not allow him at all times
thoroughly to appreciate it. We hope that a detailed account of
his long literary life will be given to the world by some of his
friends; but we cannot miss this opportunity of expressing our
OBITUARY. 67
satisfaction at the circumstance, that the good sense and learning
of the Archdeacon did not allow him to fall into all those wild
extravagances in Celtic literature and history, with which some
writers still ignorantly disgrace our country. The Archdeacon
lived amidst much controversy; indeed, he never so thoroughly
enjoyed himself as when wielding his pen against some literary
antagonist. But he had this admirable quality, that however
high controversy might run,—however much he might himself
suffer in the war of words,—he never lost his temper,—he never
bore malice. Without making pretence to the shallow name of
a patriot,—a word prostituted to the most sordid of purposes,—
he was a real and earnest lover of his country, always ready
and anxious to labour for its welfare, and doing no little to
promote its intellectual advancement. We shall often miss the
Archdeacon ;—we shall always think of him, and the “days of
auld langsyne,” with regret ;—-still, there will remain a feeling
of pleasure whenever his memory comes to mind; for we cannot
forget his cheerfulness, nor the honest heartiness with which he
would put his vigorous shoulder to the wheel, and help our
Association up the hill. He was sure to infuse life and spirit
into our Annual Meetings whenever he attended them; and
although many members might dispute his opinions, all the
Society will be sorry to learn the decease of their good old friend
and fellow archeologist.
An excellent portrait-bust of the Archdeacon has been taken
by Mr. Edwards, of 40, Robert Street, Hampstead Road, one
of the most promising sculptors that have come forth from the
Principality.
Sir JoszepH Baruey, one of our former Presidents, has also
passed away from among us. His kindness will not be forgotten
by those members who were present at the Brecon Meeting of
our Association. Sir Joseph had the merit of setting an excel-
lent example to landowners, in the care he took of the various
antiquarian remains extant upon his extensive possessions. He
knew their value, and he never willingly allowed them to be
injured. We can only express the hope that his heir will follow
the same laudable course of action, and that other gentlemen
with large landed estates in Wales will take effectual measures
for handing down unimpaired to future generations the archzo-
logical treasures which they possess in these our own days.
Cf
; SHHDNH NHOL
SEST 10} S1OUIpN'y . ee: M ‘dW ‘eca, ‘Arenuee WIG poypny
‘wasnsvatT ‘NVOUOW NAMO SVWNOHL
9 GI 9LEF 9 GI 9LEF
8 CP ee
48[ UO spuvy S.Jainseary, Ul soURTeg
LoL otittrssssteteeeesers -soupung 669 ccc ++ ++ +exyx9 pros
ZL Go *°** [Aq 3e sosuadxg jo ooueeg stsualquvy vibojomyaLp jo saidoc
GI IL ‘9% ‘sjaoreg Jo eSeter ‘sadeysog OL G83 "°°" ""** SES “equiesaq 3sT¢E
- OOr «+s *) ost es <> * Gee eee 0} Arenuer ysq wo ‘suondiosqng
Tt Me ee ‘Suyullg 9 $8 °° ‘SSRI ‘Krenuer 4s} uo souRleg
= ¥ ¢
‘aanpiquadrgp *S1C1333 YE
z
2)
_
i
<
—
o
°
MN
mM
<
a
<
0
Lal
ido)
°
=
°
x
12)
i=]
<
z
a
a
==]
ee)
=
of
oO
‘AUNLIGNAdXY GNV SLdIFOIN JO LNAWALVLS
‘SS81
MN DIOsEy [ous appagapy un1aqmsp
68
69
Carrespontence.
CASTELL CARREG CENNEN, CAERMARTHEN.
To the Editor of the Archeologia Cambrensis.
Sir,—I have read the account of Carreg Cynhen Castle, by the
Venerable Archdeacon Williams, inserted in the October Number of
1857, at page 335 of the Journal, with which I was much gratified ;
but having myself made some notes upon the subject as far back as
the year 1806, or 7, when upon an excursion to visit that remarkable
fortress, I am induced, ona reference to those memoranda, to differ upon
some points with the learned author.
I feel convinced that the orthography of the name as Carreg Cennen
is erroneous ; it should be as the peasantry of that quarter pronounce
it, Carreg Cynhen, 2. ¢., the rock of strife or contention, which would
render the etymology purely British, and quite appropriate, without
having recourse to the baclis Cen, or any such ‘elicanl toven to eluci-
date the meaning ; for I perfectly agree with the archdeacon that the
Gael, or his invading and predatory associates, the Norsemen and
Danes, were never the first settlers in this part of the island, and that
in their incursions they rarely penetrated so far inland. I have ina
former Number of the Archeologia Cambrensis given my reason for
thinking that the term G'wyddel is not to be taken invariably as a proof
of the advent of the Gael in such localities, but, more generally, as a
designation of places abounding in wild brushwood ;—not as to the
inhabitants, who were only described under a similar term, to distin-
guish them from their neighbours of more open situations.
It also strikes me that this stronghold of Carreg Cynhen existed
long before the period of any written records, and was occupied by the
Cymry, and fortified, as was then invariably the fashion of that pre-
historic time, by ramparts of uncemented stone of megalithic structure,
which served, at a later date of the Romanized Britons, to build the
castle, the dilapidated remains of which now crown the rock, and I
imagine that it was then that the term Castell was added to the original
name of Carreg Cynhen.
We likewise find, particularly along the coast of Pembrokeshire,
where the names of places give evidence of the invasion of Gaelic, or
Irish Celtic tribes, that the fortifications they made for protection
differed from such structures erected by the Britons as a repelling
force, by being constructed invariably of earthen ramparts, instead of
the Cyclopean stone defences of the natives. Along this section of the
coast most of such Irish remains are nearly destroyed by the incursion
of the sea, clearly proving that, at a very early period, there was an
extensive tract of flat land which afforded easy means of landing an
invading force. The centre of all these earthworks, without a solitary
exception, is gone, leaving only in some a section of the formidable
70 CORRESPONDENCE.
aggers thrown up on the land side, which evince considerable skill on
the part of these invaders.
An inspection and an account of these coast camps would form an
interesting paper for the future pages of the Journal, and I wish some
of our archeological associates, possessed of more means and better
health than I now can boast of, would undertake the task.
The name of Caermarthen, given as Maridunum, from tbe Latin
mare, does not seem so appropriate as that of Muridunum, which is
frequently met with in old documents, and, if I recollect rightly, also
in the Itinerary of Antoninus; this is exactly in accordance with the
old Welsh name of Caer Murddin, i. e., the encampment of the walled
town; it does not appear that it was situated in the marsh below it,
which, had that been the case, might have given it the addition of
mare, but upon the hill above the site of the present town; there is
reason therefore to think that, originally, it was a caer only, or
encampment of some extent, probably surrounded by an agger bristling
with wooden stakes, long before the murddun, or walled fortress was
erected. To have placed it in the marsh below the present town of
Caermarthen would have been the most ineligible spot possible, in
short, unwholesome, and at all times subject to sudden at and high
tides ; therefore, the probability is, that it was never chosen for habi-
table okay nor are there any remains now extant, or found in the
mud-deposit of that swamp, to prove to the contrary.—I remain, &c.,
JouN FENTON.
Bodmér, near Glyn-y-mél,
October 29, 1858.
SARN ELEN.
To the Editor of the Archeologia Cambrensis.
S1r,—Do the Roman roads in the Principality, to which the name
of Sarn Elen is popularly assigned, belong to a single line of road, or
is the term applied indiscriminately? I observe that the name is
given to nearly the whole line of road connecting Conovium in the
north, with Nipum in the south. Does it exist in other parts of the
Principality ?—I remain, &c.
sited — W. B. J.
University College, December, 1858.
ST. BRIAVEL’S CASTLE.
To the Editor of the Archeologia Cambrensis.
Str,—I have just received the last Number of the Archeologia
Cambrensis, and having read your paper on St. Briavel’s Castle, I
take the liberty of directing your attention to an error into which you,
and most others since the days of Camden, have fallen, respecting the
history of that place. Camden spells the place Breulais, on what
authority I should like to know; he then quotes Giraldus Cambrensis,
CORRESPONDENCE. 71
and asserts him to state that “ Mahel, son of Milo Fitz-Walter, was
killed there by a stone falling on his head,” &c. Now Giraldus does
not speak of St. Briavel’s at all; he is writing about Breconshire, and
narrates what happened at what he calls Brendlais Castle, which is
Brynllys Castle, in Breconshire, pronounced Bruntlys, or as nearly
as possible as he spells the name. Camden, clearly on account of his
way of spelling, confuses the two names, and every writer since his
time has followed in his track without consulting the original authority.
Sir R. Hoare, in his edition of Giraldus, points out the error, but all
the county historians and topographers have copied one another with-
out examining as to the correctness of the statement, and thus the error
has been widely spread and perpetuated. Would it not be as well to
notice this, and correct the error, if possible.—I remain, &c.,
Octavius Moraay.
The Friars, November 6, 1858.
BISHOP MORGAN OWEN OF LLANDAFF.
To the Editor of the Archeologia Cambrensis.
Sir,—In the last Number of your Journal, “ An Antiquary” has
given a copy of an inscription on a slab in Myddfai Church, Caer-
marthenshire, wherein is stated that Dr. Morgan Owen, Bishop of
Llandaff, “‘ Departed this Life the 5th day of March in the year of
Our Lord 1644.”
By the memoir of the celebrated Rhys Prichard, vicar of Llan-
dovery, appended to the new edition of the Canwyll y Cymry, published
this year, it will seem that Bishop Morgan Owen was alive the 2nd of
December, 1644, when he was appointed one of the executors of the
will of his intimate friend the vicar; and on the 14th of the same
month, Bishop Owen made his own will, which was proved the 12th
of December, 1645.
It is stated by Wood, in his Athene Oxonienses, that Bishop Owen
died at Glasallt very suddenly, on hearing of the beheading of his
friend and patron Archbishop Laud; and it is traditionally recorded
that he was sitting in the kitchen at Glasallt when some one brought
in the news that the archbishop was actually put to death, which in-
telligence affected him to that degree that he rose up from his chair
and dropped down dead. As Archbishop Laud was executed on the
10th of January, 1645, the date given on the slab as March 5, 1644,
is evidently incorrect, unless the date was intended to be March 5,
1644-5, and the stone-cutter neglected to carve the latter figure. But
even with all the want of communication between Wales and the
English metropolis in those days, it can scarcely be credited that the
bad news could have been nearly two months travelling from London
to Caermarthenshire.
The above slab was not set up until 1728, after the death of Henry
Owen, Esq., ten years previous to which Browne Willis published his
“Survey of the Cathedral Church of Llandaff,” in which it is stated
72 CORRESPONDENCE.
that Bishop Owen died in January, 1644-5, and was buried in
Myddfai Church, “on the north-side of the high altar, having erected
over him an altar monument without any inscription, now very
ruinous, above which were painted his arms against the wall, which
are also defaced.” —I remain, &c.,
Tonn, November 3, 1858. W. REzEs.
CHRIST’S COLLEGE, BRECON.
To the Editor of the Archeologia Cambrensis.
S1r,—It is stated in the last volume of your Journal, (p. 426) that
the church of Christ College is to be restored, being intended for the
chapel of the new Grammar School to be erected by the Governors.
I sincerely hope that any design for the Grammar School, will
involve the preservation and restoration of the decanal residence, now
degraded into a tannery. The refectory of the Dominicans, which
forms a portion of the edifice, and is now divided horizontally by
one or two floors, would make an excellent school-room, dining-hall,
or library. I think it becomes the Cambrian Archeological Associa-
tion, which numbers among its patrons and officers more than one of
the Governors of Christ College, to interpose in order to prevent the
destruction of the building in question.—I remain, &c.,
W. Basti Jones.
University College, December 8, 1858.
WELSH AND BRETON LANGUAGES.
To the Editor of the Archeologia Cambrensis.
S1r,—In a work published in the last century, the writer, a
Welshman, describing his progress through Monmouthshire and Gla-
morganshire, says: —“ At Swansea we met with some French Bretons.
We could understand something of their language. We found they
were very passionate amongst themselves.” Can any of your readers
inform me whether the Welsh and Bretons can understand each other,
as it is a point I have long been curious to find out ?—I aaa ae
LLANDDEWI YSTRADENNI, LLANFIHANGEL RHYD
IEITHON.
To the Editor of the Archeologia Cambrensis.
S1r,—TI shall consider it a very great favour if you can assist me to
any reliable information on the following subject.
In the year 1718, Adam, Bishop of St. David’s, certified the value
of livings “not in charge” in his diocese. Among others, I find
Llanddewy Istradenny certified at £14 per annum; and Llanfihangel-
rid-Ithen similarly certified at £14 per annum.
CORRESPONDENCE. 73
The bishop’s certificate, unfortunately, does not state the source of
these sums, and more unfortunately, they are in abeyance, as I have
not been able hitherto to trace them.
I have ventured to trouble you on the subject, thinking it just
possible that some book may pass through your hands likely to assist
me to the information I am seeking. Is there anything in Dugdale’s
Monasticon? If so, it would be probably under Llanbister, because
the livings are in the patronage of the Chancellor of the Collegiate
Church of Christ at Brecon, and the stall of the chancellor is that
of “ Llanbister,” who, or his lessee, takes the rectorial tithe of Llan-
bister, and the whole tithe of the churches appurtenant to his stall of
Llanbister. Apologizing for this trouble,—I remain, &c.,
Epwarp Poote,
Incumbent of Llandeni and Llanfihangel.
Goidva House, Pen-y-bont, Kington, Radnorshire,
27th November, 1858.
[We recommend our correspondent to peruse Williams’ History of
Radnorshire, just published by the Association.—Ep. Arca. Cams. ]
RUNIC STONES, ISLE OF MAN.
To the Editor of the Archeologia Cambrensis.
Srr,—In No. IX. of your Journal for 1857, p. 77, you notice
the proposed work of the Rev. J. G. Cumming, on “ The Runic and
other Monumental Remains of the Isle of Man.” At p. 5 of that
work, which has since been published, it is stated that “about six
years ago, when the church of St. John the Baptist was pulled down,
three, if not four, of these monuments (Runic) were found in the
old walls, of which only one has been preserved.” As this state-
ment will be likely to mislead other writers on this subject, and cause
regret to the antiquary that such relics should be totally lost, I beg
through the medium of your Journal to correct the error whic
Mr. Cumming has fallen into, for want of due inquiry in that quarter
where the fact could have been ascertained. I was present at the
taking down of the old chapel, and gave orders to the foreman of the
works to be very careful to preserve any relics that might be found,
either in the old walls or in the foundations. This was accordingly
done, and the only Runic stone found was the one figured in Mr.
Cumming’s work, and which is now standing on the south side of
the tower of the present new chapel. From my constant attendance
during the time of removing the old, and rebuilding the new chapel,
it was not possible that these relics, if they had turned up, should
have escaped my notice, and I felt some little disappointment that no
more remains were found.—I remain, &c.,
Rock Mount, St. John’s, Isle of Man,
25th October, 1858.
ARCH, OAMB., THIRD SERIES, VOL. V. L
WititaAM Harrison.
74 CORRESPONDENCE.
RICHARD DAVIES, QUAKER, OF WELSHPOOL.
To the Editor of the Archeologia Cambrensis.
Sir,—There is an autobiography, entitled, “An Account of the
Convincement, Exercises, Services, and Travels of that ancient servant
of the Lord, Richard Davies, (the Quaker of Welshpool,) with some
relation of Ancient Friends, and of the spreading of Truth in North
Wales,” which is very interesting, and though six editions of the
little volume have been printed, it seems scaree, and I take the liberty
of making an extract therefrom, and placing the same at your
service.—I remain, &e., ve
In page 182, he (Richard Davies) says :—
“ In the beginning of the yor 1682, my dear friend, Charles Lloyd, and I
went to visit Friends in Herefordshire, Worcestershire, &c., and came through
their meetings to London, before the Yearly-Meeting. I acquainted my
friends, George Whitehead and William Penn that I intended to go to Lord
Hide, to acknowledge his kindness for his letter on my behalf to Bishop
Lloyd. George Whitehead said there was some service to be done for our
suffering Friends in Bristol; and it was thought convenient that three of the
City and three of the Country should go with the said sufferings, and desire
the kindness of Lord Hide, to present them to the King. The three Friends
for the Country, were Charles Lloyd, Thomas Wynne, and myself; for the
City, George Whitehead, Alexander Parker, and one more. Our Friend,
G. itehead, told me that our countryman, Sir Lionel Jenkins, Secretary of
State, was so cross and ill-humoured, that when the king was inclined to
moderation and tenderness to suffering Friends, He often stopped and hindered
the relief intended them. When We went to Whitehall, We waited a long
time before We could speak with them, they being upon a Committee a con-
siderable time; but We had sent in by the Doorkeeper to acquaint Lord
Hide that We were there, and in time They sent for us in; the Secretary
looked grim upon us. I went to Lord Hide and acknowledged his kindness
for his letter on my behalf to the Bishop. He told me that I should tell the
Bishop there would be liberty of Conscience in England. I told him I did
say so, and did believe it would be so in God’s time. Secretary Jenkins
spoke in a scornful manner, and asked me what was Welch for a Quaker ;
I answered him Crynwr Crynwyr, it being the singular and plural number ;
but the Secretary said We had no Welch for it, for there were no Quakers
in the Roman’s days. My Friend, Charles Lloyd, answered, If thou didst
ask my friend the question aright, He hath answered thee right; for there is
English, Welch, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, for a Quaker. So the Secretary
said Sir, I understand Welch pretty well, and English, and Latin, and
Greek; but if you go to your Hebrew, I know not what to say to you. I
left my friend Charles Lloyd to engage with this peevish countryman, and
presented Lord Hide with a long list of the names of Men, Women, and
Children, in their several prisons at Bristol. I desired him to be so kind as to
present their sufferings to the King, which He said He would, and our friend
George Whitehead, spoke farther to him; then I turned to the Secretary,
who directed his words to me, and spoke to him thus in Welch:—‘ Mae yn
ddrwg gennif fod un o hiliogaeth yr hen Fruttaniaid, yr rhai y dderbiniodd y
Crefydd Cristianogol yn gyntaf yn Loeger, yn erbyn yr rhai sydd gwedi
derbyn y wir Cristianogol Crefydd yr awr hon.’ The English being thus,—
I am sorry that one of the stock of the Ancient Britons, who first received
ARCHZOLOGICAL NOTES AND QUERIES. 79
i
the Christian faith in England, should be against those who have received the
true Christian faith in this day. He replied He was not against our Friends,
but He said our Friends gave their votes for the election of Parliament men
that were against the King’s interest. I told him it was our birthright, as
We were freeholders and burgesses, to elect men qualified to serve both the
King and Country; but how they were corrupted when they came within
these walls I knew not. The Secretary would have engaged farther with me
in a dispute about Religion. I told him He was an ancient man, and that
they had been a long time then upon their business, and if He would be
pleased to dismiss us then, and appoint what time We should some morning
wait upon him, We would, if He: pleased, spend an hour or two with him in
discourse about Religion; upon which, He took off his hat and thanked me
very kindly for my civility; but We heard no more of him about the dispute.
Upon the whole, G. Whitehead told me He was more moderate to Friends
afterwards than He had been before.”
Archealagical Hutes oud Queries.
Note 40, vol. iii. Third Series, p. 215.—Circie, Wat’s Dyxe.—
The stones near Wat’s Dyke, which “ An Antiquary” mentions, do
not appear to be the disjecta membra of a cromlech, but are the
remains of a large circle, two stones only of which remain. They
are on the property of Mr. Eyton, of Leeswood Hall, who has very
properly forbid their removal. They give the name of Garreglwyd
to the farm on the other side of the road. A MEMBER.
N. 41.—Inner TrEncn, Wat’s Dyxe.—In the portion of Wat’s
Dyke near the Padeswood station, on the Mold line, an inner trench
on the western side of the Dyke is visible. Being densely planted,
it is not easy to ascertain how far the trench extends. No such
remains of a trench on either side exists in the portion of the Dyke
that runs through Garreglwyd farm. It is, I believe, well known
that this part of Wat’s Dyke is universally by the peasants called
that of Offa. M.A
wery 81.—LLAN AND CiL.—It has been stated that the Welsh
“Llan,” and the Irish “ Kil” are identical, and that no place in
Wales which has “ Kil” for the first syllable of its name, as “ Cilcen,”
&e., ever has the term “ Llan” also. What the proper meaning of
“Cil” (Wallice) is I do not know, unless it means a cell, hollow, &c.
If so, is there any identity between this term and the Irish “ Kil?”
Is “ Llan” ever used except before the name of a saint?
SAaxonicus.
Q. 82.—AncieNT Parsonaces In WateEs.--Can any plan be
set on foot to ascertain what primitive parsonages remain in Wales,
especially North Wales? One, so called “the Parsonage,” exists in
76 MISCELLANEOUS NOTICES.
Efenecht parish ; another, now a kind of back-kitchen or out-house of
the modern parsonage, remains at Bettws Gwerful Goch. Can any
of our clerical members give us any information on this point.
A MEMBER.
Answer to Query 45, vol. ii. Third Series, p. 75.—Namz or GREAT
Britrain.—Great Britain was so called for the first time in the second
year of James I., when an indenture was executed, November 11,
1604, for a coinage, wherein the king’s new titles were to be adopted,
MAG. BRIT. being substituted for ANG. seo. M. A.
PMisrellaneons Butires.
CaERNARVON CasTLe.—The works of reparation and excavation
in this building are continuing steadily, under the superintendence of
John Morgan, Esq., the deputy constable. Sufficient funds for these
purposes are raised by the fixed payment of fourpence for all strangers
at the castle gate; and the subject is of such importance, in its bearing
on the question of practically maintaining edifices of this kind, that
we shall revert to it on a future occasion.
DensiaH CasTLeE.—We wish that we could hear of the mayor
and corporation of Denbigh, who, we believe, now rent the castle and
its precincts from the Woods and Forests, or from the lessee under the
crown, having determined on repairing and propping up those portions
which threaten ruin. We have been given to understand with regret
that this fine old building is likely to be made subservient to the
purposes of an eisteddfod next summer.
Crorzs Ercan, Ravppian.—It gives us great pleasure to state
that Mr. Shipley Conwy has given orders that this ancient cross and
tumulus shall be protected for the future from further damage. The
tenant farmer, not knowing its value, had begun to cart away part of
the tumulus for agricultural purposes; but on the circumstance being
made known to his landlord, immediate steps were taken to prevent
the process of desecration and needless destruction. This is an excel-
lent example, and ought to be made known widely. It does Mr.
Shipley Conwy very great credit. We hope on a future occasion to
furnish members with an engraving, and some account of the cross
and tumulus.
77
Reviews.
EtHNoGgNn1E GavLoIsE. By Roaer, Baron de Belloguet. 1 vol.
8vo. Paris, 1858. Part I.
We welcome the appearance of this first portion of a learned work;
it is one that comes right home to the heart of the Cambrian Archzo-
logist, for it is composed not only of critical memoirs on the Cimmerii,
the various populations of ancient Italy,—Umbri, Ligures, &c., as well
as of Gaul,— Belge, Celtz, &c.; but it also contains what the author
calls a Gaulish Glossary ; and in this, to our mind, consists its chief
value. It is one of those books that should be classed and read along
with similar productious of German writers, such as Zéuss; but its
appearance is another slap on the cheek for Celtic scholars in Wales,
inasmuch as it shows them the way along a path wherein many of
themselves might have led. It is, however, a valuable contribution
to the common stock of early European archeology, and confers great
credit on the learning and diligence of its author.
M. de Belloguet, in his Introduction, thus enunciates three primary
propositions, which he considers sufficiently proved to serve as points
ef departure for his further researches :—
“ 1st,-The Indo-European origin of the languages commonly called Celtic,
and still spoken at the present day ;—that is to say, the Gaulish or Cymric,
of which the Bas-Breton or Armorican is a dialect; and the Gaelic, divided
into Irish, Erse, or Highland Scotch, and the Manks, or provincial dialect of
the Isle of Man. The Cornish, or Cymric dialect of English Cornwall,
beeame extinct during the last century.
*¢ 2ndly,—The close relationship of these two languages, the Cymric and
the Gaelic, testifying to the common stock from which they have sprung.
3rdly,—The identity, if not absolute, at least original, of one or the other
of these languages with the Gaulish or Breton, spoken at the time of the
Roman Conquest.”
He adds that he considers these three circumstances as establishing
philologically the oriental origin of the Celts, the unity of race, and
direct affiliation of the people who spoke, and who have preserved,
the British and Gaulish idioms. He then reviews the opinions of
modern German critics upon these points, adverts to Latham to oppose
him, and especially disputes the conclusions of Holtzmann and Mone
upon the Celtic question. We do not propose to give even a summary
of the author’s discussions on this part of his subject; they turn
altogether upon details, and nothing but a perusal of the original
pages will suffice to put our readers in possession of the facts; but
his description of the general state of the controversy is sufficiently
amusing to justify us in translating the following passage :—
“French, Belgian, German, English and Irish writers have entered the
arena; some of them taking up the name of the Celts as a title of honour ;
others repelling it with contempt ;—the enthusiasts wishing to prove that the
78 REVIEWS.
whole of Europe, Rome, and Greece herself, owed their primitive populations,
and even the gods they worshipped, to this race alone ;—the exclusives, on
the other hand, refusing to acknowledge as brethren neighbours whose lan-
guage, institutions, and remote traditions, attested their close affinity with
those who repudiated them. From Camden and Cluvier, down to Amédée
Thierry, without speaking of Pezron, Pelloutier, and Spener, I have been
tossed about in my researches from Joseph Scaliger to Pontanus; from
Fréret to Sharon Turner; from Dom. Martin to Schepflin; from E. Davies
to Betham; and from Betham to Chalmers; from Mone to Holtzmann, and
from him again to Brandes and Gluck,—all in the midst of an ardent,
obstinate, hand-to-hand fight, in which I have met with the great Leibnitz,
Niebuhr, and Schafarik ; geographers, such as Mannert, Ritter, and Ukert ;
or philologists, such as Adelung, J. Grimm, Pott, and Bopp. If our Celto-
maniacs have wished to make all Europe speak Bas-Breton, other writers,
carried towards the opposite extreme, have resolutely contested with this
idiom, and its brethren of England and Ireland, their Celtic origin, and have
changed into old Teutonic the languages of Brennus and Vercingetorix. The
exaggerations of the former had at least some excuse before the discovery of
Sanscrit, and the explanation of the astonishing relationship which they had
so correctly shobveal from the time of Edward Lhwyd, as existing between
the relics of Gaulish and other Indo-European languages, German, Greek,
Latin, &c. At length, however, the Natural History of Man called up this
immense suit before its own tribunal; and the science of Prichard, of Edwards,
of Nott, and of Gliddon, mingled its decrees with those which had already
been pronounced in the names of History and Philology. Piercing through
the Celtic epoch, Science has given us, upon the ancient territories of the
Gauls and of Caledonia, at a distance where the vision of historical criticism
fails, glimpses of people anterior to the Gaels, who had hitherto been con-
sidered the earliest inhabitants of the West. These Pre-Celtic populations
of Wilson, and Boucher de Perthes, these Kymbo-Cephalic and Brachy-
Cephalic races have not yet come out from the arcana of Geology,—and
we will leave them there, since we have enough to occupy us on the domain
of Historical Sciences.”
M. de Belloguet divides his Gaulish Glossary into two classes:
(1.) Words which ancient writers have handed down, with their
significations. (2.) Ditto, ditto, without significations. He arranges
the first of these classes in chronological sections, such as words ex-
pressly given as Gaulish by Greek and Latin writers, from the earliest
periods to the eighth century,—words not expressly mentioned as
Gaulish, but probably intended as such by similar writers; words
supposed to be Gaulish for other reasons; the Malbergic Glosses,
and the Barbaric words of Virgil the Grammarian. The second class
is subdivided into words, other than proper names; characteristic
elements of the names of men, people and places; proper names
explained by curious circumstances; and notes on the Formule of
Marculfus of Bordeaux. He comments upon each word at some
length, quoting the author, and bringing in the aid of comparative
philology. We give an example of the author’s mode of treating
words from each class :——
Class I.— (Plin. Hist. Nat. xxii. 2.) Glastum, woad, or pastel, a plant,
the juice of which gave a black dye:—Vitrum gave a blue colour.—(Ces.
REVIEWS. 79
vy. 14.) It was with this juice that the Britons tattooed themselves. Apuleius
gives this word as merely a Latin word with the various reading Glutam, or
aluta.—(Cap.° 69, Edit. 1788.) In Cymric and Armorican, Glas, blue,
glaucous-blue: in Irish, pale green, or pale-coloured: in Highland Scotch
or Erse, Glasdhaid, greyish. Compare Cymric Glaslys, Gweddlys, pastel; and
in Cornish, Glesin.”
“Class I.—Camunus: a surname of Mars in several inscriptions,—
(Orell. 1977, 1978,) and used as his only name in an inscription on a
monument where Arduinna (Diana) is represented with Jupiter, Mercury,
Hercules and Camulus, or Mars.—(Dom. Martin, Rel. des Gaul. i. 480 ¥¢
has been erroneously —— that this term is of Sabine origin, whereas one
of these inscriptions is Remish, and the other of some citizens of Reims, in
honour of Tiberius. It is also a decidedly Gaulish element of the name
Camulogenus, and of others discovered in inscriptions, such as Andecamulos,
Andecamulenses, Camulia, Camulognata, &c. The word Cam, curved, which
is common to five languages, as Zeuss informs us, is not satisfactory as far as
signification is concerned: but we have in Irish Cam, brave, powerful, quarrel,
duel; in Erse, Cama, brave; in Cymric, Cam, bad, and Camu; in Armorican,
Camma, to bend (the bow). Mone composes Camulus of the Irish Cam and
Ull, grand, proud.—(Celt. F. 214.) In ancient Britain we find Camulo, or
Camulodunum, and Camulossesa of the Ravenna Geographer.”
This Glossary comprises in all 321 words, and an excellent con-
spectus of the whole is afforded by the arranging of them in two
tables of parallel columns, where they are entered according to the
dialects to which they are supposed to belong. The author informs
us that out of all these 321 words, there are only twenty-one which
cannot be connected with others in modern Celtic dialects, directly or
indirectly ; and he concludes by expressing his conviction that he has
proved the identity of Cymric or Gaelic with ancient Gaulish. These
tables are particularly valuable for reference; and M. de Belloguet,
who quotes our recent best book on Cymric literature, Nash’s Taliesin,
shows by them, and indeed by the whole work, how thoroughly he
has inquired into the subject of which he treats. We add some of
his final words :—
“ To give a summary of my opinion, I think that the ancient Gaulish, with
its varieties, or, if it is preferred, its dialects, still floating about in the state
of primitive promiscuousness described by Renan, (Semitic Languages, i. p. 90,)
formed one and the same language, which was related at the same time to
both the Cymric and the Gaelic of the modern Celtic,—more nearly to the
former by its vocabulary, to the latter by the endings, or inflexions, which it
ssessed in common with its Indo-European sisters. This language, there-
‘ore, was positively Celtic, and not Teutonic. Such is the two-fold conclusion
to which we have come from the philological researches collected in this first
portion of our work.”
We shall look out for the second portion with considerable im-
patience.
80 REVIEWS.
Memorr on a “CromLecH-Tumu.Lus” 1n Wittsaire. By J.
THURNAM, Esq., M.D., F.S.A.
We have been very tardy in noticing an interesting paper by Dr.
Thurnam, on a “Cromlech-Tumulus,” near Littleton Drew, North
Wilts, originally published in the Wiltshire Arch@ological Magazine.
Immense pressure of matter in our portfolio is our only excuse, and
we are now glad of an opportunity to call the attention of members
to this subject; for it may throw light on similar tumuli in Wales,
and may so far aid the study of comparative archeology. This
tumulus, mainly composed of loose stones, which was known as long
ago as Aubrey’s time, but has, within the last few years, been com-
pletely excavated by Mr. Poulett Scrope, forms one, it appears, of
many of the same class, scattered over that part of the country. It
is ovoidal in shape, about 180 feet long, by 90 in greatest breadth,
and was formerly nine or more feet high. It has been found to con-
tain a central interment, in a cist on the level of the ground, or floor
of the tumulus, midway between two walls of loose stones running
athwart it; a single skeleton of a young man, with a small flint arrow
head, a lancet, at it has been conjectured, lay within. Four other
large cists, about ten feet long by four feet wide, and two in depth,
have been found round the southern curve of the tumulus, containing
from seven to ten skeletons each, those of women and children
generally by themselves. On the surface of the tumulus, near the
eastern end, stand two upright stones, with a third, once on their top,
but now fallen off and lying against them—a dolmen in fact—which
the author infers to have been not used as a sepulchral chamber, but
as an altar. The ground underneath this dolmen has been found to
contain fragments of black Roman pottery, some fragments of animal’s
bones, and one or two rude flakes of flint. The tumulus stands about
100 yards from the great Roman road, called the Fosseway, extending
from Devonshire to Lincolnshire. Such is the tumulus, such its
contents; the account of them will serve (1.) as a basis of comparison
with other long barrows, or ovoidal tumuli, in Wales, and there are
many such; (2.) as leading to a suspicion that the construction of
this tumulus, and the erection of the dolmen, with the use of flint
flakes, &c., was posterior, or at least, not anterior, to the Roman
period—a point of no small importance. Dr. Thurnam argues rather
on the contrary side, and thinks the Roman pottery to be of later
date than the tumulus; but there is nothing to show this, and we are
rather inclined to accept its presence, even near the surface of the
tumulus, as a proof of contemporaneous deposition.